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

That's a false dichotomy. It's not "Sky Wizard" vs "No God". It's "Sky Wizard" vs "We don't know". The position of "There IS NO GOD" is just the default position taken by the scientific method.

Yes, but that's a different argument. The subject here is God, what he must be like, what has he got to do with us, etc.

In that argument, yelling " There is no God!" Reveals a motivation far removed from science, and trying to drag science into it is the false dichotomy.

Emphatically!

You are correct, the original post does make the assumption that there is a God for purposes of this discussion. I was responding to your post in isolation.

I probably responded to the original post a long time ago. I don't recall at the moment.

Fair Enough, thread creep happens..

Here, I found my first response to the thread. It was this...

And from there the thread creep'd on...

True, but unless you go into the mystical realms of those who imagine 'God' to be the passive sum of all that exists or the muddle headed 'New Age' dolts who define him as 'We are God', then there is only one reasonable definition:

God is the one who created this universe.

All other discussion amounts to - Why?

Referring to God as a "who" narrows the definition quite a bit, and brings it immediately into the realm of the ridiculous.

Only if you don't know him.

That's the same thing crazy people say.

I guess you don't want to play 'what if there is a God' then.
So why do you and other atheists join in?
Are you hoping to get us to seek psychiatric help or what?

I can play that game. I just didn't know you were playing a game. I thought you were actually trying to make reasonable arguments.

If we're going to play the "what if there's a god" game, then you will need to describe exactly which god we are playing with. Also, if we're going to follow the premise of the thread, then we have to assume that all the gods of all the religions are incorrect. So what does that leave us with exactly?

What makes you so sure that you are not part of what the god is?

Most religions are right, but misguided at some place in history, that's why a promised are send to correct the wrongs or help the people.
Most religions speaks of end times and a destroyer will come from the heavens either on a horse or a white cloud, to punish the wicked and kick start a golden age of prosperity.

Just read about the 10 last popes, and u'll see they'r dead on. Pope Francis has his name of a saint whose father was named Petrus and was from Rome, thus the last part of the prophecy are forfilled, he's very diligent about feeding the poor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

Not trying to 'game' you or anyone else, Just using 'game' as a metaphor for the intellectual exercise of considering what the implications of a God existing are. And I'm sure you knew that, so it is you that are attempting to make a game of this discussion.


I answered that awhile back so again it shows you are not taking the discussion seriously. The " a God" in the premise implies that there is only one God as I explained before.


As I explained before, assuming there is a God, religions are merely attempts to understand or codify what that means. All religions that I am aware of have done a very poor job of doing that. They don't even conform to the documents that they presumably believe were from or inspired by God.

Where does that leave us? In my view, it leaves us exactly where God intended -
God does not recognize membership in a religion as an adequate response to his existence, for indeed they are not 'correct'.
Each and every man or woman must seek God for themselves as individuals.

I didn't say that we are not a part of God. We are a part of him by virtue of his having breathed his spirit into us. What exactly that means is for another discussion but it does not mean that we (us and/or God) lose our individuality.

What I disavow is the New Age concept that 'we are collectively and literally God' , and that it is we ourselves that created the universe. That concept is wrapped up in their mantra of 'we are One'.

No, we are not 'one', we are individuals. Oddly, they will say that my position is egotistical, but it is they who thinks 'they' have the ability to set 'all this' in motion. I am humble enough to see that I could not have done this.

By asking the question I'm assuming you have an opinion on this and I'd like to hear it.

Do you believe that you are separate from your surroundings? Are you separate from the trees and ocean?

Yes.

I answered your questions twice. Will you answer mine?

My opinion is that you've been taught to believe that distance between the parts of the whole means disconnection. It doesn't work that way when it comes to your body, and it doesn't work that way when it comes to all that is.

By the way, you didn't ask a question. You said you would be interested in hearing my opinion.

Defining it as "one god" is still not sufficient to know what we're talking about.

You are implying things about this "god" of yours when you refer to it as a "he" and when you say "god does not recognize". The act of recognizing anything is extremely limiting to the scope of what you could be considering for a god, and to be honest it sounds like you are assuming that god is the Judeo-Christian god. So is that the god we're talking about here?