Open to explore possibility

[pocaracas]

I thought that Christianity implied a unique god.... just one with 3 "sides", to help with distinguishing the roles. As I see it, one is the creator side, another is the human relations side and the other is the inner human side. You may only consider the creator side to be a god, but Christians will claim that god is so much more.

That's not what trinity says. There are literally three gods (Father, Son, HS), but they are still one god as whole. So you cannot replace "gods" with "sides". The three sides of a triangle are sides, not triangles.

The trinity notion claims that there are three persons in the godhead.
Not three gods. Just three different "tasks" attributed to the one god.

If Islam is so based on texts, then it is falsified by itself, as all texts are man made, thus man biased... and, as such, all they can be is a representation of the people who wrote them.

That's not really true. If a deity communicates with people, it should use some means intelligible to them, therefore texts are a possibility.

If a deity communicates with people, then that deity communicates with all people. Not just a few select individuals who then get tasked with spreading the message, because then the result is a mess - which is what we see in the world.
Also, all the supposedly divine texts in existence were manifestly penned by humans - none by the divine.

But all that they wrote may have zero bearing on reality.
How can we ascertain if the writings of old times are grounded on reality?... I'd go with Science as that which discovers and explains reality to us. Thus far, there is no god in this reality, leading me to conclude that, very likely, the gods that mankind has worshipped in the past have all been products of human imagination, including Islam and Christianity.

First of all, the existence of God and the truth of particular religion are two different things. Secondly, even if all religions are a product of human imagination, it still doesn't mean there is no god. I think that the right approach is to evaluate the existence of God separately of any religion, that is, consider traditional arguments in favor of its existence. And only afterwards, based on whether you reach a personal or a non-personal god, evaluate the content of traditional belief systems, that give more thickness to what we're supposed to do to follow god's path.

I agree that the truth of religion and the reality of a god are two different things.
However, every religion hangs on the premise that a god exists. (except Buddhism, let's ignore that wrinkle)

So, does a god exist? any god?
What is a god and what does it mean to exist?
To exist is to be real, to be a part of reality.
God is usually considered to be the creator of all there is... at the least, the creator of the Universe, at the most, the creator of reality.
If we're just going for "creator of the Universe", then it seems to be just a somewhat powerful alien.

If we're going for "creator of reality", then one can't logically exist (i.e. be a part of reality) and create it. The created must be subordinate to the creator.
As such, reality can't have been created by anything, given that this thing would have had to not exist.
Religious philosophers walk around this by claiming that the creator would have created itself simultaneously with reality... but come on... that just reeks of intellectual desperation.

Pascal's wager (and anything similar) is just a way to get people to fake it till they make it. A well known psychological fault in human brains. Given that it requires exploiting a shortcoming in human psyche, I don't think it would ever have been god approved. It would be priesthood approved, though, which is telling...

I don't think religious people generally defend Pascal's wager. Only the idea of the risk of infinite loss is interesting.

Would there be infinite loss if the god was a just one?

Why would a god value belief? If a god is interested in having people accept it as part of reality, wouldn't it be an obvious part of reality?
The priesthood, however, would indeed value belief by their congregations... If your livelihood depends on something that can't be shown to be real, only blind belief, faith, or whatever you wish to call it can avail them. Charisma and gullibility are well known to exist within humanity, so I attribute this factor a far greater chance of being aligned with reality than of any god existing and wishing humans to simply believe it exists.

Wager for wager, odds are there is no god at all, just people convincing people that there is.

It all comes down to what you think about the arguments that are generally presented in favor of God's existence. It's true that people can be gullible and might believe in things for irrational reasons. But what should be kept in mind is that people can, too, hold true beliefs for irrational reasons, and may only look for better reasons or arguments in an a posteriori fashion. You cannot dismiss such beliefs just because some people held them irrationally.

Not "some people"... all those unaware of their own psychological shortcomings - and that would be almost all humans prior to the early 20th century.

To look for better reasons for believing after you're already believing, is just feeding a bias.
In my opinion, people shouldn't need to believe whether there is or isn't a god. They should just know - no irrational reasons required. Just pure evidence equivalent to that found for so many other phenomena. If, at some time in their evolution, mankind came across evidence for the divine, then that evidence should have remained intact for us to look into after all these years of worship... and yet, after all these years, all that mankind has managed to show is a multitude of religions and accompanying gods, and the arguing between said religions leading to conflicts and wars and loss of life. The perfect way for any god to reveal itself, huh?

But if the god is not real, or just doesn't care, then all this bickering is completely justified as a purely human psychological phenomenon.