I'm gonna provide you a link so you understand why your answer is a strawman. But first, I would ask that you re-read the question, and answer it as stated, rather than putting on the Christian lens and ignoring the question.
so, again. If there is a god, it is all powerful, and it wishes to be worshipped, how many religions could their possibly be?
The link following is something I constantly refer to myself. Debate and logic have a specific structure for a reason. Logical fallacies when committed by accident or habit obscure the truth. When committed deliberately, one has to wonder what the true motives of the person committing them are.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.htmlRegarding your link, thanks. But I am not interested in being trained into the limited logic of somebody else. I'll stick to my own limited logic.
If you want REAL logic, fill yourself on the Word of God, the Bible, and there's a good chance you'll wake up.
I was once a Christian minister, so you are the one who should check your assumptions. I deliberately do not capitalise 'god', as I find the concept to be... English hasn't the words for the depravity.
With every passing hour, we know more and more about the universe we live in. With each new discovery, the Christian paradigm has less place as anything but a reference for morality. And a rather poor one, since it openly advocates the death of billions.
Training in formal logic allows you a wider understanding of the world, not a limiting one. Without a framework to ask the requisite questions, one has to make assumptions based solely on emotion or unquantifiable data, which will always lead to error. It allows you to not assume, for instance, that the person you are debating has no knowledge of your axioms. A good example is this very discussion. You are proceeding from the axiom that god exists, and is active in the lives of believers. I hold no such belief, and therefore am challenging that axiom. In order for a man such as yourself to have any effect on my way of thinking, you must FIRST establish an axiom that we can agree on. Failing in this, further statements cannot be considered axiomatic.
I do not believe in any gods. You believe in three, most likely. (not all of Christendom is trinitarian). If you're not a trinitarian, you believe in still one more god than I do. The words of bronze age zealots without corroboration or evidence fail utterly to sway me, and probably any person who has a grasp of logic and is NOT raised as a theist. Those, like me, who were raised to believe and then spent a decade trying to make it fit reality, we will be almost impossible to sway to mythical thinking. You'd have to PROVE a thing that, by your axioms, is unprovable and should not be questioned. I, on the other hand, operate from the very basic axiom that a thing that cannot withstand scrutiny is false, and it's derivative corollary that a thing that cannot be proven, while worthy of discussion, should be given little weight.
In my pursuit of religion (initially with the goal of proving it true) I have found almost no difference in the basal paradigms of all of them. That these basal paradigms are also the pillars of civil society is undeniable, and could be construed as a plausible asset to religious thinking. Unfortunately, the VERY basic paradigm of all theistic religions is that a particular god or gods exist, and want to be worshipped. Since they all disagree horribly on the nature of that god, and it's name, characteristics, origins and motives, there is no possibility of all of them being true. The reverse, however is quite likely: That none of them are. Since all such religions call for the death of the unbeliever, or, worse, eternal condemnation to endless torture for the sin of using the brain that supposedly was given by the gods, one has to examine the motives of the authors. That's a mixed bag, but the basal paradigm in all of them was that the leaders of the religions be given ultimate authority over the populace because "god said so" and that is not to be questioned. This meme has been outlandishly successful, allowing kings and other brigands to lead thousands to their deaths on the field of battle. It has been said that more men have died in the name of god than from any other cause. It's not true, but it's not far from it. At root, all wars are economic, but without some emotional cause to rally the masses, they won't occur. That religion is such an easy one to push into our (still primitive) emotional mind is a very serious argument AGAINST the utility of extant relgions if the goal is to make better human beings. Another of those oft repeated but false memes is that there are no atheists in foxholes. Again, it's untrue, but the people saying it are universally religious, and just as universally, are not thinking. If saying that being a paid killer requires relgion is considered to be an asset, then do you really think someone seeking peaceable coexistence would consider your religion meritorious?
I could go on for hours on this. But I simply have better things to do. It was all-consuming for more than ten years of my life. As I approach my 47th birthday, I find that while it still has the power to piss me off, I simply cannot devote the time and resources to bashing the idiocy of religion that I once could. In my own life, suffice it to say that becoming an atheist, while difficult due to the systematic brainwashing inherent in being raised religious, has been among the very best decisions I ever made. It has allowed me to pursue things that have actually benefitted me, it has allowed me to understand that being who I am is not egregious in itself, that violent thoughts are not immoral, only violent actions, and really a large number of other assets. Turning my back on religion has quantifiably improved my life in ways that I cannot enumerate without taking up reams of paper or pages of forum space. I no longer wake up feeling I'm cursed because I'm different from those around me. I no longer envy the lives of the clergy, as I got everything I have honestly. If I ever do drive a luxury automobile or live in a grand house, I will have earned it, not guilted a bunch of poor bastards into giving me what they earned for no return. Unlike when I was a Christian, I can face the man in the mirror without him condemning me, unless I've actually done something wrong. I also no longer have to wonder why it's considered ok for people to do horrible things as long as an innocent is punished (another pillar of your religion). I now understand it fully. It's a trick. It always was. When you give your autonomy to another, you give up much MUCH more than you can imagine. While I do not believe in an immortal soul, the concept is useful metaphorically. Mine is not for sale, and the rent is very high. You, and others who believe these things, have given yours away for free, and the only return you will ever get from it if you TRULY believe, is a warm fuzzy feeling as your Clergy, who are atheist to the core, sell you down the river.
I have, by the way, employed several deliberate logical fallacies in the above. For the most part, it conforms to logic. If you can identify them, you will be far more enlightened in your limited view than you were an hour ago. Regardless of your faith.
