The "one god further" objection is fallacious

Thank you for your response, however I feel you are steering off the debate topic a little bit. Nevertheless I will respond to your "break down" of the supposed problems and address where I see an issue. I. The question of God: You say that "the proper approach to the existence of God is not to come up with some prior notion of what it means to be God and see if that being exists." I feel this is more of an excuse rather than a means of argument. I don't see how the "One God further" notion is invalid here as you are saying. Through the use of rational and logical thinking it derives FACTS such as the FACT that thousands of God's have existed with mankind since the dawn of time, the FACT that a Christian is brought up a Christian by sheer chance (example). The FACT that if a person was brought up in Ancient Greece or the time of the Vikings they wouldn't believe in God or Allah etc. The FACT that Christians or any other religions discount every other God apart from the one they believe in. The "one God further" notion uses these facts to then come up with a logical and rational opinion and how can you argue with facts, rationality and logicality? I feel that all your talk about the "proper approach"is then invalid as surely facts, rationality and logic is as good an approach as any. II. The question of revelation: I'm sorry but I do not see how any of what you say under this heading is relevant to the topic. The topic is "The one God further object is fallacious" not "does a revelation have to exist". Please I ask you to not wander off from the topic at hand. III. The Question of the Preternatural: Again I feel this is also irrelevant as it seems you are making an argument for the existence of God or a higher being rather than arguing why you think The "one god further" objection is fallacious. The Question of the Preternatural is a different topic entirely and holds no relevance with this topic. You say that the problem with the argument is that it misunderstands theism but how is this so? Modern believers only believe in One God so they therefore discount every other God. That is a fact and cannot be argued against. So therefore the argument is using this fact to propose an opinion. How can it misunderstand theism when it just carries over the facts from theism? "1) With respect to pagan gods and the like" "With respect to pagan gods and Greek gods, that kind of thing, the flaw is that we are equating those beings with the God of monotheism simply because of the name "god." Are you saying that those "Gods" are somehow more flawed then the "Gods" that are believed in today? Why do you have a better reasoning to believe in a god than the Ancient Greeks? There is just as little evidence for one as the other. At the end of the day they are indeed all proposed Gods so therefore why should "the one god further" objection have to cherry pick which Gods it talks about? It is all the same idea. "The problem is that dismissal of one does not imply the acceptance or dismissal of another." The only reason a Muslim believes in Allah or a Christian believes in that God is because that is the culture in which they grew up in so they discount every other God because that is not what they are taught to believe in. On the contrary the atheist stand i.e.. the one God further objection looks at all "Gods" collectively and concludes that the existence of one is very unlikely based on facts. You say that it is a category mistake to lump the pagan Gods and the monotheistic Gods together but why? They are both the same principle so why should they be treated differently? I therefore don't see why the one god further objection is fallacious because I don't see any good reason why I should hold the modern theistic gods in a higher league than the rest. If there is just as little evidence for both types then surely they should be grouped in the exact same way. I fail to see why the gods of pagan religions are basically aliens. They are a belief in a higher being/beings so they are the exact same principle as the God of classical theism, just that people believed in more than one. Also no Gods have been shown to be true or false, they are just not believed in anymore. The people believed in them at the time the very same way that you believe in God at this time so why is your belief better than theirs? In thousands of years people might not believe in anything so your beliefs could easily be seen as what we now see the Ancient Greek belief system. It is the exact same principle. Again, the one god further objection sees all the gods as equally grouped, and rightly so. Again, you say that "The God of classical theism is not even comparable than the gods of ancient religions because he is an explanatory ultimate reality, not just a greater-than man being." He is a man-made superstition like the others. The fact that the god of classical theism is seen as an explanatory ultimate reality does not make any difference to it. Just because there is more elaboration on him, how does that make him any more true than Zeus or Apollo? I do not feel as if I need to respond to the rest of your response as I would be repeating myself. To reiterate my reoccurring point, the one god further objection does not disprove the existence of God, it merely looks at the facts of belief and comes up with a rational opinion based on them. A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning so how can anyone say that coming up with a rational, logical view based on facts is a fallacy? It classifies all "Gods" in the same category because that's what they all are, "Gods" based on superstitious belief with no evidence. I remind you that the title of the debate is "The "one god further" objection is fallacious", not "The classical theistic one god further objection is fallacious". So we are talking about "Gods" in general.