No. Religious beliefs appear pretty ridiculous without much help at all.

The suggestion that your comments are distorted from your intent implies that your intent is clear and coherent—that I somehow know what you “really” mean, and that it means something sensible. I don’t think that’s true.

I’ll often try to restate your arguments in a way that exposes logical flaws—which can make them look ridiculous. Either clarify them or live with it.

You don’t understand how not knowing everything contradicts the idea of “all-knowing”?

As I already explained, that sort of omniscience is not possible for a being that’s contained within the universe, bound by its laws. The “science doesn’t know everything” dodge doesn’t get out of this, because science does know this. It would violate causality.

No, you’re not really trying to take mysticism out. You simply want to ignore it. As Clark said, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. By declaring your god to be not supernatural, but rather, preternatural, you’re saying that his powers are “merely” a kind of technology, but so advanced that it’s like magic. There’s nothing less mystical about that.

What evidence do you have for that? Like every other Christian, your “relationship” with god shows no evidence of being different than a six-year-old’s “relationship” to Santa. You declare him “approachable”, yet cannot even demonstrate his existence. Steve Jobs at least occasionally answers his email.

Uh, you’re talking to an atheist here… “blasphemy” is an empty concept.

I certainly applaud the idea that logic is relevant to thinking about gods; I just don’t think you are thinking logic. Theistic beliefs are simply not logical.

Yes, I know, they somehow “feel” logical to you. When you talk about them with your fellow believers, they “feel” the same—but those beliefs won’t hold up to critical analysis, which is the real test.

This isn’t to say that my beliefs are somehow infallible. The difference is that I’m happy to tell you what they are, and to defend them logically. I even honestly intend to change them if you show me they’re not logical.

I’m sure that we don’t have or understand all the laws of physics. But that’s not at all the same as not knowing anything. It’s not necessary to know everything in order to rule out some possibilities.

What you’re struggling with, I think, is that you, personally, don’t know all the physics that we as a species have worked out. The result is that you’re working under the misapprehension that there’s a lot more “wiggle room” for your theological assertions than there really is.

Must be some kind of LDS thing—Brandon hasn’t either, though the TV series, at least, was generally popular with the “nerd” crowd.

Here’s a brief synopsis, so you can understand the argument. Wikipedia has more, as usual.

The US government uncovers a mysterious device, a large ring-shaped thing, presumably alien technology, buried in the Egyptian desert. Over years of experimentation, they work out that it’s a portal to some other place. The story picks up with a new scientist added to the team who discovers the proper sequence to activate the device. A small military team goes through the “stargate”, finding themselves inside what looks like an Egyptian pyramid, but on a different planet.

After scouting around, they come across a group of pre-industrial desert nomads that appear entirely human. They speak a language that seems descended from ancient Egyptian, so our young scientist/hero establishes rudimentary communication. They ask if the visitors are gods, since they came through the gate.

While they’re interacting, a giant, pyramid-shaped alien space-ship arrives and “parks” on top of the pyramid. The team learns that it’s the gods… specifically, the god Ra. In truth, Ra is an alien—a snake-like parasite carried inside, and controlling, a human host. Centuries past, his race visited Earth and transported some of the Egyptians to be slaves on this other planet. His race uses their advanced technology to pose as gods, and it’s their past interaction with the humans of Earth that’s the origin of most of our mythology. Ra the Egyptian sun god is the antagonist of the movie, but over the course of the TV series, we meet many more.

So, Ra was an alien who came to Earth claiming to be a god. His powerful technology gave him quite god-like powers, including the ability to raise the (recently) dead. Now, how is Ra different from the god you’re proposing?

Offensive, and absolutely wrong. This is a false dichotomy. Life has meaning without gods—that you don’t see that is your failing, nothing more.