Turquoise wrote:
I understand what you're saying, imortal, but what's the point of believing in something you have no way of proving? Doesn't it make the most sense to just not pick a religion due to the lack of evidence supporting any of them?
Again, anything is possible, but the likelihood of any religion being correct is extremely low. The likelihood of even vaguely understanding this supposed being is very low as well.
I agree with you on both of those viewpoints. But I have always stated that the important part of a religion are its rules for regulating society and how we act in it. The Ten Commandments, for example. Take out 'keeping the sabbath holy' and 'worship no other gods before me,' the rest of the rules just make sense, from the standpoint of community relations.
I have also always said that if someone questions the rules (for their own benifit, nearly always), "beause God says so" is harder to argue with than "because I said so."
And lastly... someone, and I wish I could remember who, said "Anything we do not know, is God."
Ancient man did not know that it was gravity that pulled the fruits form the tree to the ground, so God did it.
They did not know that bacteria caused disease, so God did it.
Eclipses and earthquakes were signs from God.
God brought the rain, and God caused the draughts.
Yes, it is a rationalization to help to label the unknown, and make it less terrifying. Maybe we can see it as a placemarker for future knowledge to go.
...and now? We do not know
how or
why the Big Bang happened. So God did it.