Define god

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

There is a common atheistic argument that points to religious diversity as evidence that religion is untrue - I find this view quite mistaken.

A follower of Yahweh will insist that all other religions are untrue because their God said there are no others.

You did not present the atheist's argument properly. Religious diversity is evidence that many religions must be untrue because many of them insist on exclusivity and contradict one another. They cannot all be true. So, which one of them actually is? If we can't agree on which one is, why should we believe that any of them are?

It's true that the claim of authoritative exclusivity that exists in many religions can't all be true. Still, there may be all kinds of things in various religions that are still true besides that. Ever taken a history of religions class? The similarities that exist in many religious traditions are incredible.

It seems to me that religious diversity tends to support the truth of God. Lots of people, from lots of places, that never met or each other or even have a language in common are getting a similar idea about a supreme God. To me, that's interesting evidence for God, not against.

In the Bhagavad gita, Krishna reconciles things like this:

BG 4.11: As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pritha

So whether someone is worshiping the Muslim God or Christian God or Jewish God, whether an aborigine in the jungle is worshipping a totem pole out of respect for the powers of nature, or whether a scientist is trying to discover the laws of nature - in various ways, different people are respecting and trying to approach and understand the powers higher than us, according to our respective realizations.

---

In the sense that your definitions represent the total ignorance of nature and physics necessary to take any of that seriously, I can agree with it.

Specifically, do you feel those definitions contradict knowledge of nature and physics? Or are those definitions simply unsupported by science?