What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God?

havin doubts? Difficult when you have a brain but still want to believe in such nonsense ?

It wouldn't make a difference in regard to the way the world is proceeding.

Actually, a reasonable and logical question.

Many, probably most, of the arguments I hear against theism and/or religion, seem to come from a position that humans appear to need gods...and it is not unusual or illogical to suppose they just invent them.

Further, the "invented gods and stories" all have, according to the detractors, serious flaws.

Further still, that there is no need for "gods" to explain (what we consider) REALITY.

Humans may be wrong about what gods are...and have absolutely no ability to conceive of them or to describe them...BUT they may still exist.

Saying that the so-called god of Abraham and the stories associated with that god seem far-fetched and most likely a product of human invention is one thing.

Saying that because of that...and the similar failings of other religions...that there are no gods...is a step too far.

So...good question, Neo.

Whatever actually IS on the issue...IS...without regard to what humans have to say about it.

Define 'God'?

Define..."define."

Good discussion here:
http://able2know.org/topic/64673-1

I was not being a wise-ass with Mark when I asked him to define "define."

If you define "define"...you pretty much figure out how to define god.

I know that. Just trying to add perspective

You miss my point.
You require those religions to grant said definition. If they are wrong then 'yours' must be introduced.
Now - Define 'God'?

I believed I was asking an open ended question. I'd hate to restrict the thread to my personal beliefs.

Is that OK?

If it makes sense, how about 'intelligent creator with some purpose in mind'.

Define "define" Mark.

That is necessary in order to answer your question.

Will someone now assert

No, it isn't ok.
Because 'God' is derived from these (now incorrect) religions.
Thus - The only definitions obtainable are also incorrect.
You now need introduce your own and define it precisely.
And, in doing so, you introduce a (your) "Correct" religious outlook.
This, being achieved, results in a 'liars-paradox' situation.....Does it not?

I deleted a previous reply.
Sorry.
This might make more sense:
Consider what you believe atheists and agnostics would not believe in.

Use that idea.

Don't think me being difficult here, but 'not' believing in something kind of prevents having an image to work with.
Like - Not believing in there being other universes prevents developing an image of them.
When I consider 'God' I don't (nor do my christian, muslim or jewish friends) connect with the hollywood prescribed humanesque father-figure. God claims omnipresence (everywhere at once) - I can't imagine 'everywhere' at once. So I am at a loss, as are my friends, in the visualisation-factor.
And, if that God is everywhere - That God is 'everything' - Again, inconceiveable.

Then our afterlife (if any) and final judgement (if any) proceeds "according to what really is" and not "according to whatever erroneous ideas man-made religion has come up with".

I can't speak for agnostics, but when atheists like me say they do not "believe in God" they tend to mean that they have no use for a concept of God. So IMO you are correct in raising the existential issue of "is-ness" since from the pragmatists viewpoint "is-ness" merely implies "what is conceptually useful to humans". To argue that "existence" involves anything more than that, would itself be a leap of faith, i.e. a religious claim.

So the answer is that your "question" is self defeating because it is axiomatically "religious".

Oh, drat!