People throughout history have tried to defend the existence of their god or gods using philosophy. but in the end does it really matter? any god or gods that exist have no obligation to confirm to our philosophical stipulations.
please critique this idea for me.
I think largely religion fails to understand that God is not a thing one should be believing exists or not.
It's not that kind of idea.
"God" is like a character in a story, one where it can be postulated to exist or not.
In philosophy, this makes of the idea of 'god' a sort of lever that can be used to prove useful math.
One could stipulate for example that one has problems relating to the nature of mathematical systems in general. One could for the sake of exploring the nature of such systems a "God" character who makes such systems and by exploring the sorts of things that would be true about this system, come to conclusions of systems in general, and about people, namely the kinds of people who make such systems!
As such, the existence of this "god" character in our own story of reality is unimportant.
Its about using whare ever ideas we encounter, even the idea of a creative "god" character, to live better lives here, for the sake of each other. Believe in, or against, such characters spoils the usefulness of the character itself in narrative explorations.
If you believe it can't exist, you turn away from using it in building understanding about systems. If you believe it must exist through revelation or other logical necessity, you turn away from any of the actual useful conclusions it can lead you to: you lose touch with doubt.
Neither outcome is good.
Belief, for or against, is simply not wise.