Religion and geography

[Godscreated]

I suppose your point is that China isn't conforming to the model. Sure, not every model is perfect and there are going to be gradual or even sudden changes here and there. But on the whole, religion and geography are closely linked. Hence multiple gods or one bollocks God. Or none.

I'd have a lot more respect for the religious if they accepted each other's gods rather than all seeing theirs as the "real" one based on nothing. The way it is, a huge percentage of them are guaranteed to be utterly wrong.

We're talking about one/sixth of the worlds population and by 2030 one quarter of China's population, seems to me God's put a real killer on your model.

GC

[robvalue]

Erm, no. You didn't say which option accounted for the situation up until now.

[Angrboda]

ManMachine made the point, but perhaps you missed it. There's the possibility that all the god beliefs are true in their own way, they all describe aspects of truth.

[Anomalocaris]

ManMachine made the point, but perhaps you missed it. There's the possibility that all the god beliefs are true in their own way, they all describe aspects of truth.

Any belief, if investigated deeply enough through the substrates of the reasons and mechanisms that brought it forth, will be traceable to some factual truths. So any belief, even those concocted for no direct reason whatsoever other that to deceive, must ultimately reflect some truth, and therefore be true in some way of its own.

But being true only in this manner of way is useless, because even though truth it contains is somewhere, you can't readily and reliably identify what it is and where it is. Therefore you are unlikely to be helped by it in drawing any correct conclusions. So for a belief to be true only in this manner of ways is functionally equivalent to being false.

To be functionally true, It seems to me the belief must be associated with, either within itself, or within the context of in which it is propagated, an accurate and precise description of exactly in what way it is true. Only then is "being true in its own way" capable of being of any value.

[robvalue]

I agree, I don't understand how they can all be even partly true, in any meaningful way. I mean, all they are is text, at best they tell us what someone believed. There's no unknown data captured to be processed or anything. Establishing their "truth" in correlation with some sort of creator is pretty impossible I would say, and highly subjective at best.

I'm just engaging the fantasy that each holy book somehow actually does point to a creator, and analyzing the possible scenarios this leads to.

[Anomalocaris]

I agree, I don't understand how they can all be even partly true, in any meaningful way. I mean, all they are is text, at best they tell us what someone believed. There's no unknown data captured to be processed or anything. Establishing their "truth" in correlation with some sort of creator is pretty impossible I would say, and highly subjective at best.

I'm just engaging the fantasy that each holy book somehow actually does point to a creator, and analyzing the possible scenarios this leads to.

I think the expression "being true" is frequently obscurantistically abused in order to not admit "it is not true in any useful way".

[Godscreated]

Erm, no. You didn't say which option accounted for the situation up until now.

SO!!!! you wrote them you should be able to distinguish between them, don't go the childish route, you're better than that.

GC

[robvalue]

Oh, I get to choose? I was asking for people's opinions on which one it was. But if you want me to pick, then it is of course 5. Can you pick an option, or describe a reasonable alternative, that explains how many different religions exist all claiming to be the one true one?

My point is that if there is just one God, then he has done a terrible job, one way or the other, making that clear. And he can't or won't remedy the situation either. If you have an alternative explanation I'm all ears.

[John V]

Did I miss anything? My guess is that every theist goes with 3.

There is one god, but people in their pride didn't want to worship him and invented gods of their own liking. This is the Biblical view. Read Romans 1.

[robvalue]

Sounds closest to option 3 then, it's our fault. Thanks for the first honest answer Any ideas on why God can't or won't clear up this problem now all the people who started the other religions are dead, and their descendants just took "on faith" that they were right?

Of course, you have to be prepared that a Muslim will say exactly the same about your God. How can this be resolved when both claim "faith" as their reason?