OK, not trolling. I was giving the benefit of the doubt. It would appear you don't understand some of the logic then.
It's up to you to say goodbye or not, it's an open forum. It isn't so much an attempt to intimidate as it is an attempt to allow you an opportunity to answer with truth instead of fautly reasoning.
That you disagree with what is said is not in itself a good enough reason to proclaim what is said is faulty.
On the numbers argument, you aren't making sense. The only thing I can pull from your response that seems to be understandable is this part: "That is because there is no one central god for any person to draw upon. So it really is just their own personal individual belief."
It is your subjective opinion. Obviously I disagree. IOW, I have a different opinion. This is the pivotal point. Your toaster example does not apply. It is not even an accurate example to use to compare many gods vs one true God.
To state it simply: Many people believing in many different Gods does not preclude the possibility of their actually being one true God.
It makes no sense to you because you misconstrue the argument. What i was referring to was not with the intention of questioning the existence of a god. It was instead an explanation of the type of logic we are using and an apparent misunderstanding on your part of the use of the word , validity.
The toaster argument is an argument that comes up most often in nearly any logic 101 class. It is an example of how a deductive argument can be both false and valid. Not anything to do with a god.
The real trick in any theistic argument is to also have the argument being "sound" and valid. Which occurs when the premises are true and the conclusion is true. That is not easy because , as you said.. "Obviously I disagree. IOW" .
The fact is you don't know this factually.
No, i question your right to say that. it is taking an unfair advantage. One not earned by reason, but by stealth. As such, i have no reason to assume that i should give any god the dignity of considering their part in reality. No more than i would for any fictional character. Because you or if you want to point to others or even many others who share your beliefs? That is no more credible to me than listening to a bunch of gamers talking about the latest games. Humans are quite capable of creating many truths.
My "perfect life" example is a good one. It does not have to be true to illustrate my point. Don't let your own beliefs about it cloud the example.
I get that you are rebellious in nature and proud of your conclusions. We are all like that really in some part. But know that it can hide the truth from your eyes. This is really about pride in ourselves. Better to be humble when it comes to truth. None of us are that wise or all-knowing.
When you say " example", do you mean this? From your post #194.
" If you believe the atheists ethical stance, then one might assume you believe there IS at least in theory a perfect way to live ones life. If this is true, many people believing in many different ways would not nullify that one perfect way.
That is my argument."
There are so many holes in that statement.
I do not believe the atheist ethical stance because there is no such thing. It is more a case of because i take an ethical stance that i am an atheist. Not because i am an atheist therefore i have an ethical stance. Atheism is not my primary concern despite any attempts to point out an atheists twisted desires to send christians to hell.
No, There is no one perfect way to live a life. But having used the argument yourself then you would have no problem in agreeing that my claim does not preclude the possibility that people will still attempt to seek it or that it precludes the possibility that a person can adhere to some levels of ethics.
