Define god

[genkaus]

There is a common atheistic argument that points to religious diversity as evidence that religion is untrue

On the contrary, the atheistic argument is that religious diversity means atleast most of them are false. Try not to make any more strawmen.

There first verse of Srimad Bhagavatam describes many important qualities of God:

SB 1.1.1: O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You. I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes. He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.

Here are some relevant verses from Sri Isopanishad:

Iso Invocation: The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

Iso 4: Although fixed in His abode, the Personality of Godhead is swifter than the mind and can overcome all others running. The powerful demigods cannot approach Him. Although in one place, He controls those who supply the air and rain. He surpasses all in excellence.

Iso 5: The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away, but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet He is outside of everything.

Iso 8: Such a person must factually know the greatest of all, the Personality of Godhead, who is unembodied, omniscient, beyond reproach, without veins, pure and uncontaminated, the self-sufficient philosopher who has been fulfilling everyone's desire since time immemorial.


Here are relevant verses from Bhagavad gita (spoken by Krishna, God):

BG 9.4: By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.

BG 9.5: And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.

BG 9.6: Understand that as the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, rests always in the sky, all created beings rest in Me.

BG 9.7: O son of Kunti, at the end of the millennium all material manifestations enter into My nature, and at the beginning of another millennium, by My potency, I create them again.

BG 9.8: The whole cosmic order is under Me. Under My will it is automatically manifested again and again, and under My will it is annihilated at the end.

BG 9.9: O Dhananjaya, all this work cannot bind Me. I am ever detached from all these material activities, seated as though neutral.

BG 9.10: This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kunti, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.

BG 9.11: Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

BG 9.12: Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated.

BG 9.13: O son of Pritha, those who are not deluded, the great souls, are under the protection of the divine nature. They are fully engaged in devotional service because they know Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, original and inexhaustible.

Of course, this is just a small sample, explaining just some qualities of God. Many more elaborate descriptions exist.

I've taken all these quotes from: http://vedabase.net/

Seriously? You are still using the incorrect ISKON translations? Go learn some actual Sanskrit and read the original Gita. I don't have time to go through all the mistakes one by one.

---

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.

Yes, and that is the historical evidence of cultural inflence.

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.

It would be, if what you stated was in fact true. Its not. And demonstrably so.

As it happens, those lots of people from lots of places, did meet each-other, did converse in each-others' languages, carried out trade and war and generally traded other cultural aspects. Which is why a lot of facets of god also got passed around.

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.

Don't put the scientist in the same category as the others. The thing that you refer to as the "power higher than us" - the rest of them are content with just worshiping and respecting it - they have no real interest in actually understanding it. They are satisfied with whatever imaginative attributes are assigned by their masters.

A scientist, on the other hand, is not just content with understanding this 'higher power' - he also uses it for his own benefit. And in doing so, no longer regards that power as higher. That's right, science seeks to make your god its bitch.

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

Both.

[Darkstar]

[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.

It's because they are all copying off of each other. Not to mention, they are still exclusive. The ancient Egyptian religion has a ressurection story, as does Christianity. This may be evidence of copying, but it is not evidence of a ressurection because the accounts are different in a number of ways. Religions copy the same basic concepts off of older ones, and let 'god' fill in the contradictory details (I mean contradictory between religions, but there are internal contradictions as well).

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.

Unfortunately for you, Krishna is vastly outnumbered by those theologies that state otherwise. You are using a baseless assertion; logic dictates that contradictory religions are indeed contradictory.

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?

Remember the moon and sun distance thing from earlier?