I am allowing for the existence of a God who exceeds my capacity for understanding. It is possible God is "math," at some level; based on the cell level mathematic similarities between DNA and fractals and all kinds of other things.
I wonder how you can believe in something you can't understand nor observe in some way. What's the substance of your faith then: there's something out there? How can you believe when you don't know what you believe?
'I'm allowing for..." would indicate you're not sure. Your second sentence would indicate some kind of pantheism. Personally I don't see what mathematics has to do with the existence of a personal god. If it's just another name for a principle I don't have an issue with that but it doesn't strike me as congruent with the conventional concept of god. More like the god of the philosophers: the prime mover, the demiurg etcetera.
I also don't know that God stopped speaking to us; there may be prophets today that we dismiss or refuse to listen to because we think they are hallucinating. 8bn ppl in the world. I know a fraction of a fraction of them.
If god is all-knowing surely he would find a way to unequivocally communicate his existence to us. I.e. not through people he'd know would be diagnosed with some kind of psychotic disorder. What's the difference really? How do you differentiate between a religious belief/experience and a plain old delusion or hallucination? I have a hard time understanding how religious people can stay sane when they have to oscillate between the reality we all inhabit and a supposed reality that lies beneath the empirical reality. What's their standard for truth? How can they call someone else crazy when they hold beliefs that have as little empirical grounding as say the claim of being Napoleon or Christ.
It is equally dismissive to believe that the concept of a God is a 10,000+ year shared hallucination between vastly different races and experiences as it is to believe what I stated: where there is smoke, there may be fire. Lets be open to that until we find proof otherwise.
If you reread what I wrote you'll see that is not what I said. You seemed to make the claim that since people all over the world since the beginning of time believed in some kind of god it would somehow constitute evidence of his existence. I countered that with the example of hallucinations. Believing something doesn't make it true and that many people believe something means nothing when it comes to establishing the existence of the object of belief.
There is no 'smoke' here as far as I'm concerned. I'm open to actual evidence, not mere assumptions, guesswork or faulty arguments.
Pascal's Wager is an interesting point: if one believes in God, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain; if one disbelieves he has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Pascal's wager has been refuted many times. There seem to be many gods (or at least conceptions of gods) out there: what if you happen to believe in the wrong god? Wouldn't there be hell to pay? Which god is the right one? What if there are many gods and believing in (only) one would arouse the ire of the others? Wouldn't it be better to admit you simply don't know and therefore become either agnostic or simply take the non-existence of a god or gods as the baseline untill you know more? What if you believe in god A but it turns out only god B is real? Or both exist but god B is more powerful?
Why would a loving god care whether we believe in him or not?
Not to mention Voltaire's criticism of Pascal's idea: a supposed interest in god's existence doesn't prove he actually does exist.
Besides wouldn't god be offended if we feigned belief in him in the hope of some reward? Plain old atheism seems much more honest in this respect.
For a great answer to your question on varying religions, check out "The Secret Teachings of All Ages," by Manly Hall. A religion does not need to be theist to be an attempt to explain things someone is seeing in a way that it can be understood.
My remark about there being many different religions wasn't meant as an empirical question but as a counter-argument to your notion that god would communicate through the different religions in order to be understood by different peoples.
Why would a personal god found or inspire an atheistic religion like buddhism? Or a polytheistic system? Or shintoism which doesn't believe in gods but in spirits of the ancestors and nature?
My beliefs ARE subjective, not based on emotional need though - while it would be great to see all my relatives again, it is not required. Perhaps my soul is simply energy and I am having a life experience here that I will take back to be absorbed by God. I don't know! I am merely a believer who is open to the idea that the more I THINK i know, the less i am SURE i know.
If your beliefs are subjective that basically means that you created your own image of god. Personally I believe that's all god is: an idea people came up with that simply doesn't refer to an actual entity in reality. There's simply isn't any credible evidence that it could be more than that. Absence of proof isn't proof of absence but it sure isn't a reason to conclude that absence of proof equals proof of existence.
'Emotional need' need not to be understood solely as 'I'll see my dead relatives again'. Many people believe because they are afraid of death and think believing in god will grant them eternal life (whatever that may mean) or they crave meaning, comfort, justice... Obviously I can't know whether that is or isn't the case for you. Surely your religious beliefs must provide some kind of comfort to you or in some way be useful to you?
I do agree with your last sentence: the more I know the less I'm sure of what I know. Hence my adherence to scepticism: don't believe in things without sufficient evidence. Reality is complex enough as it is without creating unprovable worlds and supernatural beings to further confound the matter.
If you take death to mean energy being reabsorbed into the cosmos I'd say you're right: matter is indeed energy and what we are will not simply vanish but re-used by the cosmos. Whether you use the word 'energy' or 'soul' or 'cosmos' or 'god': what's in a name? If we're buried our body will decay and become food for micro-organisms, worms etcetera and ultimately become soil. If we're burned our atoms will drift towards the heavens. Our bodies and individual identities will dissapear but not the atoms that made up our body.
The problem with that very naturalistic observation is that it flies in the face of the standard definition of a 'soul': an individual immaterial entity that survives physical death. Surely energy being absorbed by the universe doesn't translate to an individual consciousness being preserved?
Your notion reminds me of the Hindu concepts of Brahman and Atman.
Like I said I have no problem with religious people (not a priori anyway) and I firmly believe in the right of anyone to believe (or don't believe) whatever they want but I found this kind of discussion always boils down to the same conclusion: there simply isn't a good argument pro the existence of a god/gods. Not to mention a priori arguments prove essentially nothing, not the existential question (does X exist?) anyway. For that we need empirical evidence, not clever deductions.
Religious people can't prove any of their contentions and they simply choose to believe whatever they believe inspite of the clear lack of evidence. Surely that is their right but it's not my way. I don't believe I'm closed-minded in any way: show me the evidence and I'll gladly concede you're right and adjust my world-view accordingly . If no good evidence is forthcoming I'll simply disregard those notions which to me hold no value or information and are thus merely wasted mental energy. Not to mention the time, effort and often money people spend on their religious hobby. I really do have better things to do with my time.