Believers, please differentiate these gods.

[MJ the Skeptical]

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.

If you had no problem then there shouldn't be an addition of God D when there was no confusion in the first place with asking you to differentiate between two gods in an example where you can't add variables to help you avoid the challenge, derp. I didn't skip anything. You ducked the challenge like every other theist in here. Tell us what is FT anyway. Be more vague next time.

Apparently not.

And for good reason, because it's bunk.

Yes, we have different ideas as to what constitutes evidence.

Your standard of evidence is gullible at best. Especially since you think a god has been proven to some demonstrable degree. Absurd.

you think mine are too broad, and I think yours are too narrow.

Other way around, champ. Plus, you dishonestly tried to claim my challenge is flawed because you can't answer it.

I think yours are special pleading in that you likely accept some historical documents but reject religious ones.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.

You accept some religious documents. Key word is some. And that opens up another can of worms. Why would someone accept one religions documents over any another religions documents. Don't try and pretend your religion has more of that or has more credibility. All the claims in the world from manuscripts wouldn't make your religion or those claims true. Religious documents have extraordinary claims, and historical claims that are more closely tied to tangible reality get more favor, sorry.

[John V]

If you had no problem then there shouldn't be an addition of God D when there was no confusion in the first place with asking you to differentiate between two gods in an example where you can't add variables to help you avoid the challenge, derp. I didn't skip anything. You ducked the challenge like every other theist in here. Tell us what is FT anyway. Be more vague next time.

FT is the god itself does not manifest in reality, but it's actions do. I noted this earlier. It's pretty simple and shouldn't be controversial. You're making knee-jerk defenses to a benign point.

And for good reason, because it's bunk.

Actually it's because the Nobel prizes have specific categories and theology isn't one of them.

Your standard of evidence is gullible at best. Especially since you think a god has been proven to some demonstrable degree. Absurd.

Your opinion is noted.

Other way around, champ.

No, I accept more types of evidence than you do.

Plus, you dishonestly tried to claim my challenge is flawed because you can't answer it.

I claim your scenario is incomplete because it is, as I've demonstrated. Your "challenge" is rather ambiguous.

You accept some religious documents. Key word is some. And that opens up another can of worms. Why would someone accept one religions documents over any another religions documents. Don't try and pretend your religion has more of that or has more credibility.

I don't pretend. I examine criteria such as motivations which we alsu use to assess mundane claims.

[MJ the Skeptical]

FT is the god itself does not manifest in reality, but it's actions do. I noted this earlier. It's pretty simple and shouldn't be controversial. You're making knee-jerk defenses to a benign point.

"God D" is still God B though since action pretty much necessitates manifestation. If I wrote it incompletely in my OP, I apologize. Hope this clarifies it.

Actually it's because the Nobel prizes have specific categories and theology isn't one of them.

You would most certainly win any Nobel Prize or some prestigious title in Science for discovering a god to any degree.

No, I accept more types of evidence than you do.

If you accept things like personal experience or cherry-picking some religious documents, then I still accept more demonstrable evidence than you at face value. Gullibility is not a standard of evidence.

I claim your scenario is incomplete because it is, as I've demonstrated. Your "challenge" is rather ambiguous.

Honestly, I was only asking theists to differentiate between the two gods in my example, but if we add God D, I still don't see a differentiation between that one and God A, B or C in the current state of affairs in the universe.

I don't pretend. I examine criteria such as motivations which we alsu use to assess mundane claims.

Irrelevant. You still cherry-pick some religious claims and can't show why it's more credible than any other god claim. Like how you can't tell the difference between God B and God C because there is no way to tell the difference between them. And like I said, your God D addition would still be indistinguishable from God B or God C anyway. Unless you've got something to bring up.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Slayer, what is wrong with having an ecumenical approach to religion. I can accept that all the major religions have varying degrees of truth and that adherents can have different opinions about particular aspects. I wouldn't say that even Swedenborg could capture the fullness of truth about spiritual reality. There's always more to learn about God. Knowledge of God comes from two sources: general revelation and specific revelation. Anyone can deduce the existence of basic divinity from the natural world and their own experiences. Hiehgt of pagan inquiry was Plotinus. That gives you a very general outline of God. Each tradition has its own specific texts. Most differences reflect the fact that they are mediated by various individuals throughout many cultures.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Slayer, what is wrong with having an ecumenical approach to religion. I can accept that all the major religions have varying degrees of truth and that adherents can have different opinions about particular aspects

They can't all have truth to it when religions have mutually exclusive answers...what kind of cognitive dissonance are you experiencing to say that. What's wrong with cherry-picking? well, it's a fallacy and it's intellectually dishonest.

I wouldn't say that even Swedenborg could capture the fullness of truth about spiritual reality.

But there is no spiritual reality. First you'd have to demonstrable a spiritual reality or a reality of spirits exists.

There's always more to learn about God.

But you said it yourself in another thread, god is love, nothing more to know is needed. And when I fucked my g/f last night we made god right?

But seriously, an all powerful deity that doesn't give you all the facts, and doesn't give you all it's knowledge it tortures you forever. What a completely non-evil being...

Knowledge of God comes from two sources: general revelation and specific revelation.

Both are horseshit, and improper standards of evidence, no wonder you are a believer if you have such fallacious standards. This is why you believers are having time with my challenge. Because you don't want to face the reality that your god-tale (which is God B, not A) but even if it was A, they're all indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist. How can revelation be any sort of evidence when it's not repeatable, it's not demonstrable and is entirely subjective, it's like saying I got special revelation from an all powerful alligator or something. Our minds are very fragile, we make mistakes, we experience false positives, and we hear and see things that aren't there more than we want to realize. So before you pretend that you're some special creation from a god, know that you're actually a flawed animal that's too stupid to know you've been tricked by archaic people making up stories of gods because they didn't even have 1% of the knowledge we have today.

Anyone can deduce the existence of basic divinity from the natural world and their own experiences.

There's nothing divine about the universe or natural occurrences otherwise they'd be supernatural occurrences (which are really just unexplained natural ones). But if by divine you mean wonderful and awe inspiring then yeah. But that doesn't at all point to a god or anything divine. You can more properly deduce that the natural world is all there is, and you'd be most align with the current scientific understanding. Or you can be stuck in the dark ages and pretend 21st century deduction gets you to a god.

Hiehgt of pagan inquiry was Plotinus. That gives you a very general outline of God. Each tradition has its own specific texts. Most differences reflect the fact that they are mediated by various individuals throughout many cultures.

Which is a good example of why they are all based in mythology, not reality. Because nobody can get it right, and the differences are more than slight cultural changes. Most religions are mutually exclusive.

[Rampant.A.I.]

God can choose to hide himself. He doesn't owe you an explanation. He is eternal and you live about 80 years if you're lucky! Have fun and stop worrying and questioning this God shit!

Go back to "handling your kiwis," and leave the thinking up to people who actually want to.