Believers, please differentiate these gods.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Can we stay on topic please? Let's talk about how frodo, godschild, and chadwooters can't differentiate gods B and C because those gods are indistinguishable from one other.

You know what, maybe this is a good place to end the thread, now that this has been established.

So when we disagree with you we do not understand, yeah right, your bigotry is showing.

GC

[Esquilax]

Can we stay on topic please? Let's talk about how frodo, godschild, and chadwooters can't differentiate gods B and C because those gods are indistinguishable from one other.

You know what, maybe this is a good place to end the thread, now that this has been established.

So when we disagree with you we do not understand, yeah right, your bigotry is showing.

GC

Your glib, insulting defense mechanism is showing, GC.

[John V]

Maybe we should instead play what's next in the series

Seems to me God C should be:

God C, this god does not manifest in reality but this god's actions do manifest in reality.

Then the current C would be D:

God D, this god does not manifest in reality in any way.

I left out the parentheticals as they're non sequiturs. A God D could exist, and would be a deist-type god.

Uh, no because that's God B.

No, God B is, "this god manifests in reality but this god's actions do not manifest in reality."

All the believers in here just want to duck the question and twist it to what they want.

My point still stands that you can't tell the difference between God B (god who exists but it's actions can't be detected, can't be verified or don't manifest) and God C (god which doesn't exist).

We're not ducking, as the believers posting are all or mostly Christians, and we have God A. Jesus manifested in reality, and so did his actions.

[Esquilax]

We're not ducking, as the believers posting are all or mostly Christians, and we have God A. Jesus manifested in reality, and so did his actions.

And that's where you reach shaky ground, because to claim he was more than a Jewish preacher is to write a check that the evidence can't cash. That's the issue here; you're now asking us to believe that you have God A, while using "evidence" that would be equally present in cases of Gods B or C.

[John V]

And that's where you reach shaky ground, because to claim he was more than a Jewish preacher is to write a check that the evidence can't cash. That's the issue here; you're now asking us to believe that you have God A,

I'm not asking you to believe anything.

while using "evidence" that would be equally present in cases of Gods B

God B is pretty silly: this god manifests in reality but this god's actions do not manifest in reality. The god himself is observable in the universe, but he doesn't do anything. With god B we wouldn't expect accounts of his actions, but Christianity has that.

or C.

No, in the case of C, we wouldn't expect accounts of his presence or actions, but Christianity has those.

[MJ the Skeptical]

No, God B is, "this god manifests in reality but this god's actions do not manifest in reality."

Manifesting includes the ability to be detected. Some will say god is not detectable.

We're not ducking, as the believers posting are all or mostly Christians, and we have God A. Jesus manifested in reality, and so did his actions.

You can't speak for all of Christianity or Christians, some of them actually believe in God B as Christians.

And once again, my point still stands that you can't tell the difference between God B (god who exists but it's actions can't be detected, can't be verified or don't manifest) and God C (god which doesn't exist).

[Esquilax]

I'm not asking you to believe anything.

Let's not engage in sophistry, you came into the thread to give an opinion, you clearly want us to consider it.

God B is pretty silly: this god manifests in reality but this god's actions do not manifest in reality. The god himself is observable in the universe, but he doesn't do anything. With god B we wouldn't expect accounts of his actions, but Christianity has that.

I think the OP kind of poorly worded his description of B, give that the characteristic listed at the end is "this god exists." I've seen this type of reasoning set out before, back then it went "god B exists, but doesn't manifest in reality," which I think is self explanatory.

No, in the case of C, we wouldn't expect accounts of his presence or actions, but Christianity has those.

Could you do me a favor and stop treating us all like we're idiots? It's really clear to see that this is begging the question, and no amount of ignoring the first part of my post where I explain why is going to change that. This line of reasoning here is truly ridiculous, to the point where I don't want to insult your intelligence by assuming that you actually believe it.

You say a god that doesn't exist wouldn't have accounts of his presence or actions, and then you proceed to live in a universe where there are countless gods that have accounts of their presence or actions, and yet you don't believe they exist. Clearly, you're not so convinced of your own logic there, and why would you be? I wouldn't want to have to accept the existence of Odin and Vishnu and Allah and every last god that has ever been depicted, either.

But don't engage in special pleading by asserting that your god exists because of those accounts, but not any of the others that have identical accounts. While you're at it, don't attempt to oversell the value of those accounts either; you're talking about miracle claims restricted to one book, that has a vested interest in having people believe those claims. Circular reasoning.

[John V]

Let's not engage in sophistry, you came into the thread to give an opinion, you clearly want us to consider it.

I'm noting that from our point of view we have god A. If you're contesting that, then give the reasoning. Otherwise, my point stands and is not sophistry.

I think the OP kind of poorly worded his description of B, give that the characteristic listed at the end is "this god exists." I've seen this type of reasoning set out before, back then it went "god B exists, but doesn't manifest in reality," which I think is self explanatory.

I agree that OP is worded poorly and tried to help clarify, but my suggestions were rejected.

Could you do me a favor and stop treating us all like we're idiots? It's really clear to see that this is begging the question, and no amount of ignoring the first part of my post where I explain why is going to change that. This line of reasoning here is truly ridiculous, to the point where I don't want to insult your intelligence by assuming that you actually believe it.

You say a god that doesn't exist wouldn't have accounts of his presence or actions,

No, I say that "god does not manifest in reality in any way" wouldn't have accounts of his presence or actions. I noted previously that the parenthetical, "(this god doesn't exist)," is a non sequitur, as a deist god could exist. I'm not treating you like an idiot. The problem is that you're not really reading what I'm saying.

and then you proceed to live in a universe where there are countless gods that have accounts of their presence or actions, and yet you don't believe they exist. Clearly, you're not so convinced of your own logic there, and why would you be? I wouldn't want to have to accept the existence of Odin and Vishnu and Allah and every last god that has ever been depicted, either.

That A implies B doesn't mean that B implies A.

But don't engage in special pleading by asserting that your god exists because of those accounts, but not any of the others that have identical accounts.

Others don't have identical accounts. I've been through that before.

---

No, God B is, "this god manifests in reality but this god's actions do not manifest in reality."

Manifesting includes the ability to be detected. Some will say god is not detectable.

I have no idea how your statement follows from what you quoted.

You can't speak for all of Christianity or Christians,

Fair enough.

some of them actually believe in God B as Christians.

I don't see how that's possible.

And once again, my point still stands that you can't tell the difference between God B (god who exists but it's actions can't be detected, can't be verified or don't manifest) and God C (god which doesn't exist).

First, I don't recall challenging your point on B v. C, as I hold to A. Second, you're moving the goalposts, now adding "verified."

[MJ the Skeptical]

I have no idea how your statement follows from what you quoted.

Sounds like a you problem. You disagreed with me that he wasn't explaining God B when he made up a God D because he wanted to duck the challenge.

I don't see how that's possible.

Tell me about it, all god concepts are ridiculous.

First, I don't recall challenging your point on B v. C, as I hold to A. Second, you're moving the goalposts, now adding "verified."

If something can't be verified, then it accounts for nothing. That is the only real goalpost there, if a thing can't be verified or detected to some degree it's indistinguishable from something nonexistent until there is said evidence to verify it.

[John V]

Sounds like a you problem. You disagreed with me that he wasn't explaining God B when he made up a God D because he wanted to duck the challenge.

I'm the one who made the God D, so I don't know why you're referring to me in the third person. The purpose of my initial post was to suggest ways to improve the OP. The purpose wasn't to duck, as I believe in an A god.

If something can't be verified, then it accounts for nothing. That is the only real goalpost there, if a thing can't be verified or detected to some degree it's indistinguishable from something nonexistent until there is said evidence to verify it.

IMO the Christian god has been "verified or detected to some degree." You have different criteria for detection and/or verification. THat's about all there is to it.