Your argument only works when you are assuming god actually exists but then again, you would have to prove a god exists and you haven't. If we assume a god exists, picking the ''best'' religion is still not that good because, first of all, how would you ever know, right?
Your question gets us into the domain of truth theory. It is a complex topic.
Unless you are an adherent of philosophical skepticism you accept that objective reality aka truth exists and can be known.
The question we must then answer is how do we know something is true? What non arbitrary criteria or metric do we use to determine truth?
The best answer to this question that I know of is the the Coherence theory of truth. Here is a brief description of what this is.
Coherence Theory of Truth
http://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/Knower/Useful%20Information/Three%20Different%20Theories%20of%20Truth.htm
Quote from: Austin Cline
Put simply: a belief is true when we are able to incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a larger and complex system of beliefs or, even more simply still, a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.
Sometimes this seems like an odd way to actually describe truth. After all, a belief can be an inaccurate description of reality and fit in with a larger, complex system of further inaccurate descriptions of reality, according to the Coherence Theory, that inaccurate belief would still be called truth even though it didnt actually describe the way the world really was. Does that really make any sense?
Well, possibly the reason is because statements cant really be verified in isolation. Whenever you test an idea, you are also actually testing a whole set of ideas at the same time. For example, when you pick up a ball in your hand and drop it, it isnt simply our belief about gravity which is tested but also our beliefs about a host of other things, not least of which would be the accuracy of our visual perception.
So, if statements are only tested as part of larger groups, then one might conclude that a statement can be classified as true not so much because it can be verified against reality but rather because it could be integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which could then be tested against reality. In this case Coherence Theory isnt that far from the Correspondence Theory and the reason is that while individual statements may be judged as true or false based upon their ability to cohere with a larger system, it is assumed that that system is one which accurately corresponds to reality.
Because of this, the Coherence Theory does manage to capture something important about the way we actually conceive of truth in our daily lives. It isnt that unusual to dismiss something as false precisely because it fails to cohere with a system of ideas which we are confident are true. Granted, maybe the system we assume to be true is quite a way off the mark, but so long as it continues to be successful and is capable of slight adjustments in the light of new data, our confidence is reasonable.
Sometimes this seems like an odd way to actually describe truth. After all, a belief can be an inaccurate description of reality and fit in with a larger, complex system of further inaccurate descriptions of reality, according to the Coherence Theory, that inaccurate belief would still be called truth even though it didnt actually describe the way the world really was. Does that really make any sense?
Well, possibly the reason is because statements cant really be verified in isolation. Whenever you test an idea, you are also actually testing a whole set of ideas at the same time. For example, when you pick up a ball in your hand and drop it, it isnt simply our belief about gravity which is tested but also our beliefs about a host of other things, not least of which would be the accuracy of our visual perception.
So, if statements are only tested as part of larger groups, then one might conclude that a statement can be classified as true not so much because it can be verified against reality but rather because it could be integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which could then be tested against reality. In this case Coherence Theory isnt that far from the Correspondence Theory and the reason is that while individual statements may be judged as true or false based upon their ability to cohere with a larger system, it is assumed that that system is one which accurately corresponds to reality.
Because of this, the Coherence Theory does manage to capture something important about the way we actually conceive of truth in our daily lives. It isnt that unusual to dismiss something as false precisely because it fails to cohere with a system of ideas which we are confident are true. Granted, maybe the system we assume to be true is quite a way off the mark, but so long as it continues to be successful and is capable of slight adjustments in the light of new data, our confidence is reasonable.
You are concerned that you cannot prove God exists to your satisfaction. My reply is that your inability to prove God has in this instance absolutely no relevance to Truth of God.
It is important to remember what we can prove.
The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century
https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/
Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove.
Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.
Gödels Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; its equally true in science or language or philosophy.
And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.
Gödel created his proof by starting with The Liars Paradox which is the statement
I am lying is self-contradictory, since if its true, Im not a liar, and its false; and if its false, I am a liar, so its true.
So Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted the Liars Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that any statement requires an external observer.
No statement alone can completely prove itself true.
His Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the positivism of the time. Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic.
Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.
He wasnt wrong. It was really true. There are more things that are true than you can prove.
A theory of everything whether in math, or physics, or philosophy will never be found. Because it is impossible.
https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/
Quote from: Perry Marshal
Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove.
Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.
Gödels Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; its equally true in science or language or philosophy.
And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.
Gödel created his proof by starting with The Liars Paradox which is the statement
I am lying.
I am lying is self-contradictory, since if its true, Im not a liar, and its false; and if its false, I am a liar, so its true.
So Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted the Liars Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that any statement requires an external observer.
No statement alone can completely prove itself true.
His Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the positivism of the time. Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic.
Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.
He wasnt wrong. It was really true. There are more things that are true than you can prove.
A theory of everything whether in math, or physics, or philosophy will never be found. Because it is impossible.
A priori Truth is mathematically inevitable. God is such a Truth. The religious have a more elegant way of summing this up. They call it the necessity of faith.
You ask why can't I prove God? This is the wrong question. The correct question is can I build an integrated and coherent worldview without God? Can I follow the coherence theory of truth and construct a True worldview without God.
Only you can answer that question for yourself. I will tell you, however, that for me the answer was no.
Again more philosophical talk, not something I enjoy. ''a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.'' Ok, if it's so simple, your god is not real. If your god is truly omnipotent and all knowing then why are we here?
God placed us here for His own pleasure, part of which is so that we can have pleasure, which happens best and most when we recognize His greatness and worship Him, for which He rewards us (even though it was He Who gave us the ability to worship Him), so that He gets glory from us, so that He has an excuse to return goodness to us for the glory that He receives, so that we both, God and mankind, can increase throughout eternity.
Your self-imposed stupidity is like the core of a black hole... extremely dense, but existing only in a single point - note that according to geometry, points don't exist. Rather, they are the "place" where two real things touch each other. You should be thanking God that He is holding you alive, and giving you a chance to turn back to Him... before it is too late for you.
Oh, right, he gave us free will but then how can he be omnipotent. If we have freewill there is no way for him to know what we are going to do, otherwise it can't be freewill, kind of like:
As I have told you maybe a dozen time, the only free will we have, exists regarding aspects of our faith in God. Remember how God elevated Abraham as explained in Genesis in the Bible? God did it because Abraham happened to turn a bit of his free will towards God in ways that surprised and pleased God. Then, in His delight, God rewarded Abraham by both, physical reward, and the ability to increase his (Abraham's) own faith within himself. A tiny touch of Abraham-free-will, and the big complete self-control of God-free-will working together.can god create an object so heavy that he can't lift it?
As I have told you in the past, Jesus is the rock that God can't lift. Why can't God lift it? Because Jesus is God, and yet is distinct from God in ways not understandable. The Rock, Jesus, lifted Himself onto the cross (because He could have overcome the people that seemed to be doing the lifting, any second), willingly died there, and then arose from death. He is the rock that God can't lift, but He lifted himself. Note that those of us who believe in God/Jesus are being moved into a place of glory similar to Jesus.The whole idea of god is already contradictory not to mention all the other contradictions mentioned by me before. Like the bible teaching not to kill but pages later saying, kill everyone that works on the sabbath. So I guess I just proved god is not real, right?
Again, there is no contradiction in the killing thing.
Any and all people that God commanded ancient Israel to kill, were people that were killing other people for nothing, and raising up children who did not believe in God and would die in Hell. So, God was stopping the killing by executing them.
In addition, the earth is he Lord's and all its fullness. It's His property. Since we barely understand the thinking and wisdom of God because of our remoteness, talking against Him is simply a failure on our part.
You are the one who is mistaken. Not believers in God, and certainly not God. When will you stop making your mistakes? Or is it that you have locked yourself into perpetual mistake making with no change ever forthcoming?
