Not sure I agree with this bit. There are a wide variety of theories in science, particularly surrounding the big questions. To suggest that any group of scientists accepting one theory will automatically accept another is just wrong. Even within the big bang theory there are numerous theories describing what occurred beforehand without invoking god. My personal favorite is that time was created during the big bang, so there was no "before", but I still respect the repeating cycle theory. I have several friends from my time at uni who are evolutionary biologists and also secular humanists and they definately do not believe in god in any format.
Actually they do, they just don't acknowledge it as such.
God isn't just some magical being in the sky. God is the perception of an order that exists.
Any rule or any definition they put in place had to be preset for them to define it, God is the thing that defined it before it could exist.
And if you say well its all programming and this exists before the current and something existed before that, you get to a point where either there was an origin, a point that all things came from or a point where there was nothing and it became something. The thing that defines that first point is God, you mightn't call it that, you might call it the first chaos event or something else you consider undefineable, but its all the same, its God.
All belief in god is belief in the same true God.
That's quite a statement to make. What do you mean by it, and what do you mean by the phrase "true God"?
Its a very simple statement and its what it is. God itself is not defined in-inexistance by man, it can can only be assumed. This assumption is what you use to choose your religion, be it a diffuse or singular belief or even science. God both exists and does not exist at the same time, it is a conundrum at the bottom of a puzzle that shows there is an answer but that we still can't know what it is.
If I look at the sky and call it orange, and you look at the sky and call it blue, is either of us wrong? It cannot be proven that the others perception is incorrect because it cannont be known without changing our own perception. It can only be assumed that we are both referencing the same thing and that the variables applied to it are different, even if impercieveably they are the same. This state of existance and non-existance at the same time causes a conundrum when communicating so we choose to ignore a state so we , can define our own relating existance. "It can't be orange because I see blue", "Ah it is Orange", "it must be somehting that is neither orange nor blue for us to both be incorrect in our perceptions", "Ah, it is both blue and orange at the same time", "There is no sky"
Most people are incapable of thinking at such high levels that they can comprehend a state of non-existence. Like dividing by 0, you have a result that both exists and does not at the same time.
I like Shinto it has the best creation story. "In the begining there was nothing. Nothing was all powerful and all Knowing. (Note there is not anything yet to be known or have power over so we just divided 1 by 0) and then Nothing contemplated something and something was."
Alll things that uses a point where Nothing becomes something beleives in the same God. Religions add theme to the rest of the story.
