Believers, please differentiate these gods.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Now you're just being obtuse. The difference between B and C is that B is unnecessary and C doesn't exist. That's the difference.

The point that obviously keeps going over your head and alpha male's is that they are indistinguishable from each other. So I'm asking for a differentiation, that's not unreasonable. It's not unnecessary to ask a believer to tell me the difference between your invisible, silent god from a fictional story with a god that doesn't exist. Stop being such a rube about this.

The OP establishes an ontological difference B and C, which I clarified. But if you must know there is no epistemological difference between the B and C. Option A is both ontologically and epistemologically different from both B and C.

[Cato]

God D(ammit)!

[MJ the Skeptical]

The point that obviously keeps going over your head and alpha male's is that they are indistinguishable from each other. So I'm asking for a differentiation, that's not unreasonable. It's not unnecessary to ask a believer to tell me the difference between your invisible, silent god from a fictional story with a god that doesn't exist. Stop being such a rube about this.

The OP establishes an ontological difference B and C, which I clarified. But if you must know there is no epistemological difference between the B and C. Option A is both ontologically and epistemologically different from both B and C.

Right, there is no logical differentiation between B and C, thank you.

God A and B are almost indistinguishable epistemologies as well with the current state of evidence.

[Ravenshire]

Why not, you're just not considering the option to avoid the hypothetical. The point of my thread is to ask how to distinguish between God B and God C.

This isn't about your opinion of what god you think is the right one, only to differentiate between B and C. But I if you think God A is the correct one, I'd like to see some demonstrable evidence of this god's manifestation.

I did differentiate between B & C then chose the real One.

GC

Got some evidence to show how your gawd manifests itself and/or it's works in the real world? No, the buy-bull doesn't count. Testable, verifiable evidence does.

Or, are you gonna be like every other faither to wander through any of the online atheist communities and either ignore the question or present unverifiable claims as evidence?

[Heliocentrism]

A is the nature of god when someone recovers from an illness.
B is the nature of god when there's a natural disaster.
C is the option "Bullshit!"

I'm going with option c.

[Justtristo]

To those who say god is real but it's actions can not be detected, I want to give you a scenario. There are 3 gods in this example...

God A, this god manifests in reality and the god's actions manifest in reality. (this god exists)
God B, this god manifests in reality but this god's actions do not manifest in reality. (this god exists)
God C, this god does not manifest in reality in any way. (this god doesn't exist)

Now please differentiate between God B and God C for me.

You average bible believing Christian (as opposed to the "learned" ones), will readily acknowledge the existence of what are other gods. However they consider them as either Satan or demons impersonating themselves as gods.

[MJ the Skeptical]

A is the nature of god when someone recovers from an illness.
B is the nature of god when there's a natural disaster.
C is the option "Bullshit!"

I'm going with option c.

This is not a pick your god game though. Also, I disagree with you on your summations of Gods A and B. Recovering from illness is not proof of a gods manifestation in reality, since we have natural remissions of illness. To your second point, if a god was real, you could theoretically find said god's manifestation in natural disasters. Which is why I'm asking them how they can tell the difference between a god who does not manifest or interact or is detectable etc. and a god who does not exist. The theists here will try to say the right god is God A, however they have no way of showing that their god manifests itself into our reality in any way. If some god was twiddling the nobs of reality, it would leave a trail, we would be able to detect it, it would be verifiable.

[Godscreated]

I did differentiate between B & C then chose the real One.

GC

Got some evidence to show how your gawd manifests itself and/or it's works in the real world? No, the buy-bull doesn't count. Testable, verifiable evidence does.

Or, are you gonna be like every other faither to wander through any of the online atheist communities and either ignore the question or present unverifiable claims as evidence?

Child, first of all I have no gawd so there is no answer for you, secondly if you had cared to look before running off at the mouth I've been here longer than most the atheist, go pedal your crap on the play ground.

GC

[LastPoet]

You know, GC, condescention only works if you actually said something intelligent... Just sayin

[John V]

Yeah, I got you mixed up with Godschild on who proposed God D when they shouldn't have. I still see no problem with my example of God B or how you think there is some problem, everyone else except the theists seem to be getting it here. Adding a God D violates the challenge by the way, bit obfuscating too.

I don't see a problem with God B. I'm noting that your choices are incomplete. When you have a scenario with two variables, and each can be either true or false, then there are four possible combinations:

TT
TF
FT
FF

I was just pointing out that you skipped FT. If there's a dodge attempt going on, it's by you, although I rather think you were just sloppy.

Wouldn't verifying god to any demonstrable degree be Nobel Prize worthy?

Apparently not.

Who got the Nobel Prize for discovering god again?...Obviously you have terrible criteria for verification or detection if you think any god has been verified let alone your particular one (and which sect is the right one anyway). But seriously, what do you have? personal experience? because you sure as hell don't have scientific verification.

Yes, we have different ideas as to what constitutes evidence. you think mine are too broad, and I think yours are too narrow. I think yours are special pleading in that you likely accept some historical documents but reject religious ones. You likely think mine are special pleading because I accept some religious documents, but reject other ones (although I've gone into differences of evidence for various religions and beliefs in the past.