So if you are a theist who thinks that your god is the one and only real god, I'm wondering if you have ever wondered why humans have thought of so many other gods and worshiped them and thought they were real etc.

Read his/her respective holy book. It explains all.

Entertain the idea that there is one true God for a moment. For years of civilization humans have tried to understand him and live according to the laws. Some have been closer to others, and its reasonable to assume that there have been some distortions in each religion and its perception of God.

It's not accurate to say that any one religion is 'true' or 'false'. Rather, each religion has varying degrees of truth to it, some being 1 on a scale of 10, and others being 10.

In poker, we always try to establish hand ranges for our opponents. Most of us are never certain what exactly this hand range consists of. Depending on the player, one might be completely off and another might be off by just a few hands. We are all hand readers; some of us are just closer to his 'true' range of hands in any given situation.

A bit of a stretch, but ok.
You seem to be overlooking just how incompatible religions are with eachother. Take Christianity, where to get into heaven one must accept Jesus as lord and saviour (or however it is worded). That means that if Christianity is true, then every other religion is for all intents and purposes, false. Likewise, I'm pretty sure that islam teaches that only muslims get to heaven. That's not to mention the different sects within these religions.

I can conceive of a god where various religions are on the right track, but not quite there, but to me that is as outlandish a claim as any of the specific deities proposed by religions old and new.

Actually no, according to Islam both true Christians, Jews and Sabians go to heaven (no I don't really know what it means)...furthermore according to Islams humans are born pure (no original sin) so babies and children go to heaven by default.

Religions aren't fully contradictory to one another. Sure there might be some contradictions (Jesus is God versus Jesus is not God), but there are common denominators amongst all the world's religions that, if one of them were indeed absolutely true, others would be not necessarily false, but just less true.

Let's take Christianity versus Islam, for example. Let's also say that it turns out that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. Does that make Islam false, for claiming he is just a prophet of God? With this single tenet, yes, but what about the other dozens of things that Islam and Christianity have in common? It turns out Islam would be correct in many of its perceptions of God (for this hypothetical standard that Christianity is the absolute truth - if it makes you feel better, insert any religion, but you arrive at the same conclusion).

If two people were to take an exam, and all the answers could be determined to be true or false; one of these guys gets all the answers correctly, the other misses two or three. Does this mean that the latter has a false perception of this reality? No, it just means it is slightly flawed, less true, but correct in many of its sights.

On a side note, that is completely false about Islam, but tame_deuces put it nicely.

Also, if you are going to say that its an outlandish claim, why even bother having this discussion? The thread was opened and could only be operated under the assumption, if not the entertainment of the notion, that there is a god. From there, what I say is completely reasonable and logically sound. If you are just going to say that its an outlandish claim that there is a god, well, then we are just back at square 0.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are poor choices to compare for the context of this thread since they are a direct progression of each other and the latter relgion doesn't necessarily invalidate the former.

For this debate you need to look at all the other religions: the greek and roman myths, hinduism, heck even scientology, raelian, etc.

Really the One God idea is in the small minority when it comes to ideas about Gods.

I agree they weren't the best choices, but do you not agree with the point that there are shared commonalities in nearly all religions? These commonalities include an afterlife, prayer, similar conceptions of morality that can place nearly all religions facing the same direction.

Well, I'm certainly no expert in comparative religion, so I really can't answer that question. It wouldn't surprise me if most religions have an afterlife, and some sort of worship.

Regarding morality: there are some basics that I'm sure most have, and there may be some big differences in some. But any belief system is going to have to touch on those topics, otherwise its not much of a belief system is it? (and before you say it: Atheism is NOT a belief system).

But given that religion was devised to help deal with those common issues, it is unsurprising that most of the them do actually deal with those issues.

Actually, the Bible explains all of this quite nicely. The Bible even mentions many of them by name like Zeus, Apollyon, Baal, etc.

Your point is incorrect. It is true that there are Christians who interpret certain verses in the Bible in the manner you suggest, but there are other verses that appear to make a different point. There are Christians that put a priority on those verses instead.

All of this reinforces alewis's point. That is, no religion is 100% correct and no human interpretation of religion even approaches 100%. The OP point has been made and refuted so many times, it is not even remotely interesting anymore.

cause they were all real

How can you really know any truths of God or Gods with that outlook?

I really love this analogy and am definity going to use it in the future.

Yep comparing a game of complete information where we know what cards are in the deck, and trying to line that up with how a human has behaved, is a great analogy to use when discussing the unidentifiable and mysterious actions of an all seeing all knowing wizard in the sky, of whom the information we have about him is limited to a few bizarre 2000 year old books.

If poker is a game of complete information, you are a much better play than I.

And in response to the second half of your post, isn't that the point of an analogy?

Do you think the Hindu's views on mutable Gods is in the correct range?

Id be careful about pointing out some people have a "truer" range on God then others. Some theists dont seem to like it when you question a part of their range.

You didn't get the x-ray glasses?

Actually, I just switched to Absolute Poker where I can see your cards.



batair, I was just referring to the intended purpose of the analogy, which I believe was clever and accurate. And your question about the Hindu belief is answered by the analogy.

We disagree then because the answer to my question cant be answered by the analogy it can only be answered by individuals or religious doctrine.

Who has the "truer range" on God. A Hindu who believe in many Gods or a Christian who believes only one? Any "truer range" answer to this question is bound to offend someone.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your question. To continue with the analogy, tthe problem is that I've played different hands and different games against this player than the Hindu poker player has. Because our experiences are significantly different, it is expected that our reads and ranges for the player are different. It is also important to point out though that even though some of the lesser parts of the range may be different, there are still fundamental hands that are included within both the Christian and Hindu ranges of the player. As with ranges, one can never really say "I KNOW your hole cards," but rather the "truest range" is subjective and dependent upon our own personal history with the player.

I would say whether or not there's One or many Gods is a fundamental hand. Especially if the One God is strict about the first commandment. Or the many Gods demand some type of devotion to move up the latter in the next life.

Im not being clear. I don't really have a problem with the idea no one can KNOW God/Gods true range. That's why im a weak/agnostic atheists and not a strong atheist, deist or theist. I don't think that's what the analogy says though.

The problem is this. "some of us are just closer to his 'true' range of hands in any given situation". You can't say this unless you KNOW God/Gods true range on some issues. If you're saying (like i think the analogy is) we can know God/Gods true range by the fundamental areas of agreement. I would ask you to point out what areas all religions and ideas about God/Gods are in agreement because i can't think of any? You can't even say there's agreement on the fundamental idea of IF there are God/Gods if you allow the various beliefs and tribal peoples who believe in only spirits to have a range.


My main point though is you said you were going to use the analogy. How do you think a strict Hindu, Jew, Christian or Muslim who believes they do have a True Range on all or most aspects of their God/Gods would react if you used the analogy on them?

What if i used the analogy and said to all the theist in this thread and on this forum you can't Know if there's One God or many Gods because it's not fundamentally agreed upon?


Fwiw i like the idea that no one can Know God/Gods true range unless there's fundamental agreement. Because i think it would eventually merge all religions into a theist/deistic type thing were no one Knows God/Gods truths. Which is what i believe when you add no existence into the range.