Yeah and look at all of the other worthy subjects he ignored as well. Thor, Odin, the Fhoi Myore... Which is what I said. One day, maybe not soon.
Seriously? You think such entities can't be reconciled with his ideas? Which is why I said maybe then you won't be relying on strawmen
To answer that, at least according to Plato, you would have to look at what the forms are. Er ... no. In the absence of the philosophical treatises derived from leprechauns you are actually right there, right now ...
Nope, doesn't answer the conversion of a plurality to a single "entity". Also no. Lack (or otherwise) of what people spend time discussing in written works or wherever else has no bearing on their actual reality. As previously stated.
golly perhaps if you elaborated on your opinion it could (also) become a book worthy (non-fiction) criticism Intriguing. Write..... I mean, tell me some more Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Differentiate the two please. We'll do gods to gods. Got a favorite you consider not real any more, Thor maybe? or Zeus? Or we could use Qerg. How?
Quite simply: the fact that so much has been written about any subject is due to the fact the guys that wrote considered it worth writing about. It's no indicator of actual validity (objective or whatever), merely that someone (or several someones) decided THEY thought it was worth their time.
FSM, Xenu and Qerg are all gods just like Zeus, Thor, Krishna and JHVH aka "god." Is it your contention they are all the same?
You know LG is just trying to sidetrack the conversation to avoid anything substantive being said about the original topic...
which neither santa claus nor tooth fairies nor unicorns do. comparing god, which you claim was invented to explain the world, cannot be degradingly compared to unicorns and flying speghatti monsters, which explain more or less nothing..., when such action is taken in an argument, of coming up with an irrelative and weak form and stapeling it on one's argument to counter it easily, is called a straw man. the magnitude of the idea of god, compared to the magnitude of the mentioned "bunch".. shows the logical fallacy at it's finest, it's like saying that aircraft carriers, and toy boats, are the same, because in your opinion; they are both "boats".. and hence, children should be allowed to bring with them aircraft carriers to school. is it clear, Dywyddyr? the contradictions and differrences are extremely small between the different gods; compared to the differences between god and the mentioned "bunch". whatever it indicates, considering its magnitude, is what makes it VERY different from pink flying elephants.
Wrong again. Each of those explain specific parts of the world, as did the early gods: Thor for thunder etc. FSM explains at least as much as any other god does. Only when it actually IS irrelevant or weak.
It is however worthy to note when other "guys" consider it worthy to write about it ... which in turn shapes society, including popular notions of reality distinguished from illusion, and all that .... actually the entire issue of what constitutes "actual validity" is a topic thoroughly embroiled in the medium of writing and who said what when.
It's not a strawman, the evidence for all these ideas and God is equal. The origin of the ideas is not relevant to their validity.
Not really. They all exist because someone thought it was worth their time (and possibly also that that others might consider it worth time to read, or being cynical, look good on their bookshelf). But those examples illustrate my point: all of them exist, but does the fact that all of them had the same amount of time/ effort put into them make them all of equal value objectively (or whatever word you want to use), of equal relevance to what actually goes on in the world?
