The God of Monotheism

[BT George]

First thanks to .John for allowing this post on an exceptional basis. Since I understand he intends to keep the window open for only one set of responses, this shall be my last word on the subject in this group. This was originally done in Word, so there may be a few formatting issues.

This last summer, another outburst of debate over the OT subjects of atheism and religion broke out. I had to sign off prematurely, because I ended up resigning from my employer of nearly 2 decades and have been busy ever since looking for my next gig. Rather than go back a try to answer a dozen posts spread out over at least 2 different threads, I decided to start a new one that cuts to the chase.

This debate is not ultimately about who can be trusted more with a weapon or given immense power; nor is it even about comparative levels of morality. (Though those are all good discussions in their own right.) What it really primarily boils down to is objections to belief in the existence (or non-existence) of a god such as traditional monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) believe exists.

Those who object to such a concept, can have their crack at “learning” us all something by presenting their best objections, but only after I present a case for the monotheistic concept of God. But first let’s set the proper stage…

What this is not:
This is not a debate about any *particular* monotheistic religion---most especially beliefs and teachings that are particular to that religion only, and not shared generally by all monotheists. So if you insist on debating the Torah, the Christian Bible, or the Koran or whether there really was a Great Flood or whether Mohammad was a good or bad man, then you will have to find someone else to play along, ‘cause that is beside the points I think must first be addressed for that sort of thing to even be relevant.

What this is:
This is a presentation and debate about the basic concepts related to the *idea* of God *himself*, that are shared by all major monotheistic religions. The reason is simple. In many cases their shared nature is mute testimony to the fact that these concepts come, not merely from the supposed divine revelation each sect claims, but from the very *notion* of such a God. (NOTE: That does not mean that all shared aspects come from the basic concept of “God”, as some are cases of shared/similar stories that came about because Christianity has is roots in ancient Judaism, and Islam sprang from a cultural milieu that was influenced by both religions and features some shared stories/characters from each.)

The Divine “Model”
Believers and others throw the word “God” around all the time, but what does a well-informed monotheist even mean when he refers to basic concept of “God”? I think the basics can fit into what I like to call a divine “God Model”. This basic set of ideas invariably involves certain sets of definite logical propositions. It is my position that virtually *all* objections to such a God find plausible answers in the very model *itself*. Here are the aspects I see as inherent in the basic God Model:

1. God is Preexistent:
Monotheism begins with the self-evident notion that whatever begins to be has a beginning. In short, for everything we see around us, we humans properly ask “What is the origin?” (I.e., “Where did that come from?”) In fact, that is what “science” is ultimately interested in understanding and explaining for any phenomenon encountered. And yet is this not ultimately destined to be a futile pursuit? Because no matter how far back one goes with provisional (finite) causes, the next logical question will always be, “And where did THAT come from?”

And so all of us, whether theist or non-theist, at some point have to yield to a certain inescapable logic. SOMEWHERE, at some POINT, there had to be at least *one* thing that had no origin. (Unless one wants to accept that there can somehow be an infinite regress of finite causes; a position that few philosophers of any stripe believe is rational, since, for example, it is difficult to explain how we ever arrived in place and time at “today” from an infinite chain of finite things that themselves must somehow make an infinite journey in space and time.) And it is at this juncture that all monotheistic religions have concluded, that there must be a *first* uncaused cause (i.e, infinite) cause of all other finite things. Fine. But of what nature would such a cause even be?

2. God is Immaterial (Supernatural):
Once the logical inevitability of a ultimate uncaused first cause of all *other* things is accepted, what then is most logical to assume that its nature must be? The first thought could well be that it too must be a material/physical thing like the Universe that sprang from it. But is that the most likely thing logically, based on what we observe about all other physical things around us?

A good first question in assessing this would be to ask what do we know about every other material thing that can be observed and tested in the physical Universe around us? Does a single such thing appear to have always existed? Indeed don’t we find that they all uniformly have some other cause for their existence whether known or unknown? Now if such things have invariably proven to have need of a cause, then the logical warrant to assume that there exists out there a “different” material thing that has the power of pre-existent eternality seems thin indeed. (In fact, one would have to wonder if such were even possible, whether it would even be appropriate for it to still be classified with other material/physical phenomenon.)

This being the case, philosophers of the theistic variety have for many millennia asserted that the most *logical* proposition, is that “whatever” is the uncaused first cause of all other things, would have to itself be of a different fundamental nature. That is to say, that since the natural laws around us uniformly argue that all things have a beginning, yet logic inexorably demands that at least *one* thing didn’t, then that one thing is separate and apart from natural laws. Indeed, not simply set apart, but in fact superior (at the very least) in this one respect: It has the power of self-existence that is lacking in all natural entities. Therefore, the essentially superior (“super”) quality of self-existence lying within this thing, plus its causal nature to all other conditional entities within the natural realm, logically render it as being *super-natural* in its makeup.

3. God is Living and Intelligent
But even given that “something” is eternally pre-existent, and that by its nature it would most likely be something separate and apart from the rest of the material Universe, that says nothing about whether it would be living or non-living, intelligent or non-thinking. In answering this question one could be arbitrary and just say I do/don’t believe in a divine being, thus I do/don’t believe the uncaused cause of all other things is living and thinking. But again, is that *logically* the best approach?

Since the actual nature of this eternal thing is currently beyond direct examination, is there a rational approach to determining the most likely truth about its nature? Monotheists have always held that examination of the operational nature of the material Universe that would have had its origins in such an entity should hold the best clues. That the physical laws governing material existence as we know it yield themselves to rational analysis (with varying degrees of difficulty) bespeaks an inherently rational nature of the created order. Even Albert Einstein (certainly no theist) expressed marvel that this was so when it could have been otherwise. And of course, not only is there abundant structure and purposeful complexity all around us, but we also find that the Universe is inhabited by living and thinking beings. Which means that the propensity for both life and thought, is also an inherent part of the natural order.

Theists then ask an obvious question. From whence did a rationally explicable, life and thought-containing Universe most likely spring? An entity that itself did *not* possess such qualities, or one that did? To ask that question, is to answer it in terms of rational probability. (BTW, the same argument would hold true for concepts like self-awareness and personality.)

4. God Has All Power
This concept refers to all power in the known Universe. An idea that springs from the rather obvious notion that to create a Universe which is essentially infinite in its dimensions and unthinkable in terms of the total energy it encompasses, the source of its creation must itself have contained power at least equal to all the energy present within it.

5. God Has All Knowledge
Since material existence itself contains intelligible features, and we have established that such features are most logically a result of intelligence vs. non-intelligence, then those features are best understood as part of some form of intelligent design. Since all created power in the Universe comes from its original source, and all its functions were established by conditions inherent in at least potential form within that same source, there are, in effect, no random variables with respect to the original source. For what can happen in the Universe that is not governed by either the physical laws that express its normal ongoing function and makeup as set in place by the original source, or by some interference or interposition upon those normal functions by the source itself?

If is true that nothing happens apart from the source (either in its design of physical laws that will function as intended once set in motion or in its own volitional interference with what was set in motion) then it must be conceded that nothing happens *apart* from some decision by the source itself. Thus whatever occurs, occurs according to the source’s intentions---whatever those intentions might be. And with control of all occurrences either actively or passively, comes effective knowledge of everything that has occurred or will occur in the known Universe.

Note: Argument 4 & 5 form the logical basis for the theological doctrine of the Sovereignty of God.

6. God is Good
It has often been argued that the goodness of God is based only on his self-revelation to mankind that his nature is thus. Therefore he might have just as easily been an evil being as a righteous one, and only theological persuasion determines what is to be believed. But I would not agree. Indeed, I believe that the characteristic of “good” is as much an inherent part of His nature via the God Model as is anything else. Why?

Well to answer that, it must first be asked exactly what “good” and “evil” really are at their essence? Or in other words, when we say that this is “good” or that is “bad” what are we usually implying about the character of the thing described? In its plainest terms, we use the word “good” when we are expressing a belief that a given thing (person, place or action) is something that ultimately acts as a creative force or acts in a manner that is beneficial to creation. (I.e, it enhances existence in some way.) And when we say that something is “bad” we are expressing the belief that something in some manner ultimately acts as a force for the destruction of creation, or at least in a manner that diminishes the health, beauty, or vitality of creation. (I.e., it degrades existence in some way.)

Now what does all of that have to do with proving that God, if He exists as the God Model describes, must be a force for good? (Bear with me, as this may take a bit to unpack, and may seem like I am perhaps tracing a rabbit trail.) The answer to this entails understanding that the most elemental and comprehensive truth about God as understood in Monotheism, is his simple and underived raw self-existence. In other words EXISTENCE ITSELF *is* his nature. There is no “why” in describing the person or nature of God, for “why” really asks again “What is the origin?” and as we pointed out in the argument for God’s preexistence, God is that one thing that has no origin and thus he cannot be explained beyond the mere facts of who he is. (Which is why in Exodus 3:13-14 Moses is told that his name was “I Am Who I Am” which is a translation of a Hebrew word that means at its essence “to be” or “to exist”.)

The import of this is easy to miss at first glance, because it has ramifications seldom considered. It is a fact that beings and entities act within the realm of possibilities inherent in their makeup. Thus suns behave like suns behave, water does what water does, while microbes, lizards, birds, and humans do the things that others of their same kind do by their very nature. Thus it must also be with the first uncaused cause of all other things. It too must act in accordance with its essential nature. And since God’s very nature is to *exist* then it follows that his actions will be directed towards goals that have as their *ultimate* design either the creation of further existence or the maintenance and/or enhancement of existence already created. And you will note that to act according to this manner, is to act in ways that we tend to call “good” because it results in the unleashing of creative or creation-enhancing forces.

By the same token it follows that God cannot act in a manner contrary to his essential nature of existence. Thus for him to engage in actions that are *ultimately* directed towards the destruction of existence or the degrading of its overall health, vitality, beauty, etc. is a constitutional impossibility. And since such a goal or direction is simply not within the framework of his very being, it is not possible as an actual or potential action by him.

The above Divine Model may be considered an operative framework for justifying the underlying rationality of belief in a Supreme Being as understood by the world’s major monotheistic religions. Doubtless, there could be objections lobbed at any number of the propositions above, but by far the most common objections center on # 6, the goodness of God. Or put another way, the problem of a good God in a Universe full of evil and calamity. I see these objections as dividing into three major categories:

I. Objections to the Necessity of God’s Goodness as a Condition of His Nature

The above argument appeals to God’s essential nature of existence itself as a reason that he must act in ways that further existence or its quality, yet animals and humans likewise share the virtue of existence. And is it not true that animals and people frequently engage in acts contrary to continued existence or its health and beauty? If so, why would God be any different?

This is indeed a logical sounding objection, and if the attribute of existence that is shared by animals and humans is a one-to-one proposition with that attribute of God, then it would surely be correct. But is the quality of existence that imbues God, really the same as it is for finite living beings? To answer this I would refer back to the arguments set forth in #’s 1, 2, & 6 that touch on the necessity of God’s *self-existent* nature. Simply put, by definition there is no “why” that gives rise to God existence or a “why” that would explain his fundamental character. All there really is, is *is*. Thus he is essentially a synonym for absolute existence in its purest form. And as a living synonym, it could only be expected that he would have a one-to-one correspondence with everything related to “is-ness”.

This is not so with animals or humans, because they have a point in time of coming into existence. Thus they are not entities *of* existence, but rather entities resulting *from* existence. This means that contained within their internal makeup is a reference point of nonbeing. And it is from this fact that they have a natural capacity to relate in more than abstract ways to the notion of ideas or actions that would tend to work against existence or towards the extinguishment of that which already exists. So while finite beings share existence as a quality so long as they *continue* to exist, it remains nevertheless, only one possible state for them. And since existence is only provisionally true for them, it is not truly an indivisible part of their very nature in the same way that it would be true for a being of *absolute* existence.

II. Objections to the Goodness of God Based on the Existence of Disaster and Evil

Now we come to the queen of the arguments lodged against the goodness of God, or (somewhat nonsensically) his very existence. The argument goes like this, if there is a God then he is either all powerful, but not all good, since evil exists, or else he is all good, but cannot be all powerful, else he would not allow evil to exist. Impressive logic----so as far as it goes. But does the above go far enough? Does it really allow for *all* possibilities? Let’s examine that by revisiting the concepts set out in proposition # 6.

You will note that it asserts that God’s *ultimate* goal in taking whatever action he takes is to do that which is creative or that which enhances creation. What the above quandary fails to consider, is that bringing about what is ultimately good may often involve many “bad” intermediary consequences. We see this in the earthly realm all the time. The successful athlete very often has to pay in blood, sweat, and injury to obtain a lasting glory in his/her sport of choice. Bad actors are incarcerated or punished to bring about the overall peace and goodness of society at large. Evil regimes have to be toppled for the same reason. Childbirth is a painful process, but it may bring about a future leader who betters the lives of millions. Bacterium are often deadly to life, but they also help bring about the decomposition of plant and animal matter that keeps the planet cleaner and results in rich soils that can feed billions. Continental collisions cause earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and death, but they also cause beautiful mountain landscapes, new islands, and a plethora of other benefits to animals and humans.

From these and endless other examples, it can be seen that a lot of “bad” things can result in an *overall* greater good. Thus it is misguided to attempt to make the formula as simple as: Presence of Bad = Bad or Impotent God with No Good Purpose. Indeed the truth of a matter is often a lot more complicated than first glance might imply. And this is doubtlessly true in attempting to explain why a good and all powerful God, would choose to enable evil to exist as a condition for bringing about his *ultimately* good purposes. But complex or not, I believe that some explanations are indeed possible.

First, the major Monotheistic religions have long believed that God’s original creation was “good” because it was not yet marred by moral evil or physical disaster/evil that would negatively impact living, sentient, creatures. A condition that would only be changed if the most sentient of these creatures were to introduce destructive (evil) choices into the mix. Now in choosing to proceed with making such higher-functioning living creatures, God himself had a choice based on logical necessity. He could either: (1) create living and sentient beings who were only capable of making “choices” that would prove “good” (i.e., creative/creation enhancing) or (2) make such beings with no intellectual or spiritual impediment causing them to only choose the good. One creative course involved making robotic machines with no independent capacity of will beyond the programming he placed within them (as we do traditional computers), whereas the other creative course involved something more refined and enhanced. Namely, the ability to interact fluidly with a changing environment and arrive at non-externally mandated courses of action in response to those changes---be those actions for good or for ill. (As we are now attempting to do by ever-complex computers with artificial intelligence.)

So which plan of creation offers the maximum enhancement of its functional capabilities and makes for its highest potential productivity and beauty? Again, it seems that to ask that question, is to answer it. Moreover, only the latter plan of creation more fully mimics the volitional nature that God possesses to act or not act; constrained only by the confines of whatever possibilities are inherent within his very nature.

Now that’s all well and good you say, but per arguments 4 and 5, God has both the knowledge and the power to interfere with the potentially destructive choices that his volitional creations might make. And since he has apparently chosen to allow them to make these choices anyway, he must *want* there to be evil. But this does not necessarily follow. Because if fails to account for the *inherent* potentiality for the unleashing of destructive choices (evil) that *must* come with offering sentient beings the ability to choose among alternatives in response to differing circumstances in a dynamic environment. Nor is this reality changed, even if God knew beforehand that the enablement of choice *would* lead to bad choices, because the accompanying creation of the highest potentiality for creative good remains a legitimate goal within his inherent nature.

But now you ask, why enable a potentiality for good that he knew would lead to evil instead? But a better question is, who says that good is not yet *destined* to be the endgame? Now it is very true that if God just left things as they are, then the slowly starving boy or girl in the African desert will just live painfully and die to no purpose. As indeed will the many billions, if not trillions, of living beings who have ever suffered or are destined to suffer on planet Earth. But what if God in following his *ultimately* creative/creation enhancing plans also provided a “rescue plan” as the means necessary to ensure that no suffering is purposeless in the end? A plan that If followed, the ravenous effects of suffering are not only undone, but become the basis for a far more exceeding blessing in a future life that features permanent sharing of God’s very nature of *inherent* goodness. (A state usually referred to as “Heaven”.) And if not be followed, there is still no “waste” of the suffering either. For in that case, God actually gives validation and honor to the enhancement of creation that is represented by the choices that have been made. In other words, whenever someone is given a free choice between following God’s rescue plan that leads to only good ultimate outcomes, or else choosing to “enjoy” the negative outcomes ensured by continued bad choices, if they choose the latter, he faithfully honors their choice. (Which is the ultimate creative good extended to an offered choice). Because he is consistent, he honors their bad choice in the same permanent way, and with the same increased intensity of bad experience that he extends to those who chose to follow his rescue plan. (A state usually called “Hell”.)

III. Objections to God’s Goodness Based on Moral Grounds

Now despite all of this, some insist that they know a higher standard of right and wrong than expressed by the way things are. (Yes “are” because evil/disaster continues unabated at this present time no matter *what* you believe about how things got that way.) Or that there must not be a God, because he must be a moral monster to allow people and other sentient beings to suffer even when they manifestly do not deserve it.

Is either claim tenable in a logical sense? For if you know of a higher standard of right and wrong, then you must also be willing and able to state the *objective* basis that leads to your statement being more than just another unvarnished personal opinion. Moreover, you are inherently implying that there is some kind of *absolute* standard, or standards, of right and wrong. But if absolute, then what law of nature made them so? If not a law of nature, upon who’s authority did these standards become absolute? (…Your answers should prove *most* entertaining.)

Now if you reason that there cannot be a God because of the existence of all the monstrous evil in the Universe, then you are simply engaging in a manifest non sequitur. For what possible bearing could the existence of good or evil have on the raw existence of a supreme being? For existence is a simple yes/no binary reality, and is not proven or disproven by moral considerations. Worse, this argument has simply combined bad *logic* with the same unanswerable questions represented by believing (as above) that you can appeal to some higher/absolute standard of right and wrong, with which to judge the character of God. (In short, it would appear that you are attempting to appeal to a *transcendent truth*, in order to deny a *transcendent explanation*.)

In closing, it also seems fitting to ask what has been gained by refusing to accept the *logic* of a divine purpose? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. For if it is true, it is still true, and there is a great hope you are refusing to believe in and embrace. And if it is false? Then all you have gained is an understanding that you came from nothing and will return to nothing, and that somewhere little boys and girls will continue to starve, some persons will always be tortured for someone else’s perverse entertainment, and natural disasters will continue unabated until the ultimate “resolution” of the cold dead Universe that eventually must end it all. If so, congratulations and enjoy! …To the “victor” goes the “spoils”.

BT George

[John McAdams]

On 27 Feb 2017 23:30:26 -0500, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>First thanks to .John for allowing this post on an exceptional basis. Since I understand he intends to keep the window open for only one set of responses, this shall be my last word on the subject in this group. This was originally done in Word, so there may be a few formatting issues.
>

That is correct.

This is off topic, but Brock explains he was unable to engage the
thread while it was active.

I will allow each poster who wants to respond with *one* post on this
thread.

It can be a reply to this post, or a reply to a reply to this post, or
such.

Remember: ONE POST PER PERSON, AND NO MORE.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Ace Kefford]

"Oswald did it all alone. There was no conspiracy."
- God

[Robert Harris]

By all means Brock, we should take the word of bronze age
goat herders who believed in witchcraft and thought the stars
and planets revolved around Earth, rather than scientists who
rely on empirical, verifiable evidence.

Science works, Brock, as can be seen by everything around us,
from computers to our greatly extended life span. Magic
doesn't work - NO EXCEPTIONS.

Consider the MILLIONS who were killed by the plague in
ancient times. Those people prayed their little hearts out,
thinking they must have pissed off their god. But "He" never
lifted a finger and they dropped like flies, for hundreds of
years.

It wasn't until the rudimentary science of the times, found
the real cause of the plague, that humanity was released from
this deadly affliction. Science saved millions, Brock. Your
mythical, magic man did nothing, as he always does.

And isn't your reference to an "uncaused first cause" a
debate tactic meant to allow you to argue that everything has
to have been created, without telling us who created your
magical man in the sky?

This universe began with the "big bang". That has been proven
beyond doubt. And scientists have been increasingly convinced
that it is not the only one. Nothing in nature happens only
once, amigo. And it seems, that universes are no exception.

Belief in gods is much like the beliefs of many JFK
assassination buffs. Too many of us believe only what we WANT
to believe - not what the facts and evidence tell us that we
should believe.





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

How about if we don't want to reply to this nonsense because it will
only encourage him?

[bigdog]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 11:30:28 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:

> First thanks to .John for allowing this post on an exceptional basis. Since I understand he intends to keep the window open for only one set of responses, this shall be my last word on the subject in this group. This was originally done in Word, so there may be a few formatting issues.
>
> This last summer, another outburst of debate over the OT subjects of atheism and religion broke out. I had to sign off prematurely, because I ended up resigning from my employer of nearly 2 decades and have been busy ever since looking for my next gig. Rather than go back a try to answer a dozen posts spread out over at least 2 different threads, I decided to start a new one that cuts to the chase.
>
> This debate is not ultimately about who can be trusted more with a weapon or given immense power; nor is it even about comparative levels of morality. (Though those are all good discussions in their own right.) What it really primarily boils down to is objections to belief in the existence (or non-existence) of a god such as traditional monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) believe exists.
>
> Those who object to such a concept, can have their crack at “learning” us all something by presenting their best objections, but only after I present a case for the monotheistic concept of God. But first let’s set the proper stage…
>
> What this is not:
> This is not a debate about any *particular* monotheistic religion---most especially beliefs and teachings that are particular to that religion only, and not shared generally by all monotheists. So if you insist on debating the Torah, the Christian Bible, or the Koran or whether there really was a Great Flood or whether Mohammad was a good or bad man, then you will have to find someone else to play along, ‘cause that is beside the points I think must first be addressed for that sort of thing to even be relevant.
>
> What this is:
> This is a presentation and debate about the basic concepts related to the *idea* of God *himself*, that are shared by all major monotheistic religions. The reason is simple. In many cases their shared nature is mute testimony to the fact that these concepts come, not merely from the supposed divine revelation each sect claims, but from the very *notion* of such a God. (NOTE: That does not mean that all shared aspects come from the basic concept of “God”, as some are cases of shared/similar stories that came about because Christianity has is roots in ancient Judaism, and Islam sprang from a cultural milieu that was influenced by both religions and features some shared stories/characters from each.)
>
> The Divine “Model”
> Believers and others throw the word “God” around all the time, but what does a well-informed monotheist even mean when he refers to basic concept of “God”? I think the basics can fit into what I like to call a divine “God Model”. This basic set of ideas invariably involves certain sets of definite logical propositions. It is my position that virtually *all* objections to such a God find plausible answers in the very model *itself*. Here are the aspects I see as inherent in the basic God Model:
>
> 1. God is Preexistent:
> Monotheism begins with the self-evident notion that whatever begins to be has a beginning. In short, for everything we see around us, we humans properly ask “What is the origin?” (I.e., “Where did that come from?”) In fact, that is what “science” is ultimately interested in understanding and explaining for any phenomenon encountered. And yet is this not ultimately destined to be a futile pursuit? Because no matter how far back one goes with provisional (finite) causes, the next logical question will always be, “And where did THAT come from?”
>
> And so all of us, whether theist or non-theist, at some point have to yield to a certain inescapable logic. SOMEWHERE, at some POINT, there had to be at least *one* thing that had no origin. (Unless one wants to accept that there can somehow be an infinite regress of finite causes; a position that few philosophers of any stripe believe is rational, since, for example, it is difficult to explain how we ever arrived in place and time at “today” from an infinite chain of finite things that themselves must somehow make an infinite journey in space and time.) And it is at this juncture that all monotheistic religions have concluded, that there must be a *first* uncaused cause (i.e, infinite) cause of all other finite things. Fine. But of what nature would such a cause even be?
>

This is the reason I am an agnostic and not an atheist. Science can explain everything back to the Big Bang. To the best of my knowledge it can't answer what happened before the Big Bang to cause the Big Bang. Until that question can be satisfactorily answered, I am not willing to rule anything in or out.

> 2. God is Immaterial (Supernatural):
> Once the logical inevitability of a ultimate uncaused first cause of all *other* things is accepted, what then is most logical to assume that its nature must be? The first thought could well be that it too must be a material/physical thing like the Universe that sprang from it. But is that the most likely thing logically, based on what we observe about all other physical things around us?
>
> A good first question in assessing this would be to ask what do we know about every other material thing that can be observed and tested in the physical Universe around us? Does a single such thing appear to have always existed? Indeed don’t we find that they all uniformly have some other cause for their existence whether known or unknown? Now if such things have invariably proven to have need of a cause, then the logical warrant to assume that there exists out there a “different” material thing that has the power of pre-existent eternality seems thin indeed. (In fact, one would have to wonder if such were even possible, whether it would even be appropriate for it to still be classified with other material/physical phenomenon.)
>
> This being the case, philosophers of the theistic variety have for many millennia asserted that the most *logical* proposition, is that “whatever” is the uncaused first cause of all other things, would have to itself be of a different fundamental nature. That is to say, that since the natural laws around us uniformly argue that all things have a beginning, yet logic inexorably demands that at least *one* thing didn’t, then that one thing is separate and apart from natural laws. Indeed, not simply set apart, but in fact superior (at the very least) in this one respect: It has the power of self-existence that is lacking in all natural entities. Therefore, the essentially superior (“super”) quality of self-existence lying within this thing, plus its causal nature to all other conditional entities within the natural realm, logically render it as being *super-natural* in its makeup.
>

I've never thought it is logical to assume an answer because we can't think of any other answer. This is why I'm an agnostic and not a believer.

> 3. God is Living and Intelligent
> But even given that “something” is eternally pre-existent, and that by its nature it would most likely be something separate and apart from the rest of the material Universe, that says nothing about whether it would be living or non-living, intelligent or non-thinking. In answering this question one could be arbitrary and just say I do/don’t believe in a divine being, thus I do/don’t believe the uncaused cause of all other things is living and thinking. But again, is that *logically* the best approach?
>
> Since the actual nature of this eternal thing is currently beyond direct examination, is there a rational approach to determining the most likely truth about its nature? Monotheists have always held that examination of the operational nature of the material Universe that would have had its origins in such an entity should hold the best clues. That the physical laws governing material existence as we know it yield themselves to rational analysis (with varying degrees of difficulty) bespeaks an inherently rational nature of the created order. Even Albert Einstein (certainly no theist) expressed marvel that this was so when it could have been otherwise. And of course, not only is there abundant structure and purposeful complexity all around us, but we also find that the Universe is inhabited by living and thinking beings. Which means that the propensity for both life and thought, is also an inherent part of the natural order.
>
> Theists then ask an obvious question. From whence did a rationally explicable, life and thought-containing Universe most likely spring? An entity that itself did *not* possess such qualities, or one that did? To ask that question, is to answer it in terms of rational probability. (BTW, the same argument would hold true for concepts like self-awareness and personality.)
>

This is why I don't spend a lot of time pondering the imponderable.

> 4. God Has All Power
> This concept refers to all power in the known Universe. An idea that springs from the rather obvious notion that to create a Universe which is essentially infinite in its dimensions and unthinkable in terms of the total energy it encompasses, the source of its creation must itself have contained power at least equal to all the energy present within it.
>

This reminds me of the old George Carlin line. If God is all powerful, could he make something so big he couldn't lift it.

> 5. God Has All Knowledge
> Since material existence itself contains intelligible features, and we have established that such features are most logically a result of intelligence vs. non-intelligence, then those features are best understood as part of some form of intelligent design. Since all created power in the Universe comes from its original source, and all its functions were established by conditions inherent in at least potential form within that same source, there are, in effect, no random variables with respect to the original source. For what can happen in the Universe that is not governed by either the physical laws that express its normal ongoing function and makeup as set in place by the original source, or by some interference or interposition upon those normal functions by the source itself?
>
> If is true that nothing happens apart from the source (either in its design of physical laws that will function as intended once set in motion or in its own volitional interference with what was set in motion) then it must be conceded that nothing happens *apart* from some decision by the source itself. Thus whatever occurs, occurs according to the source’s intentions---whatever those intentions might be. And with control of all occurrences either actively or passively, comes effective knowledge of everything that has occurred or will occur in the known Universe.
>
> Note: Argument 4 & 5 form the logical basis for the theological doctrine of the Sovereignty of God.
>

This makes God seem like Santa Claus. He's making a list, he's checking it twice, he's going to find out who's naughty and nice. If there is a God who knows everything I do, say, and think I'm probably going to hell.

I remember in 6th grade one of the girls in my class (Catholic school) asked the teacher if God is all knowing, IOW he knows what each of us is going to do before we do it, how can we have free will. The example she gave is if God knows you are going to steal a candy bar, how could you possibly not steal the candy bar. It seems preordained. I thought it was a very good question. I don't remember the teacher's answer but I'm pretty sure it wasn't as good as the question.

> 6. God is Good
> It has often been argued that the goodness of God is based only on his self-revelation to mankind that his nature is thus. Therefore he might have just as easily been an evil being as a righteous one, and only theological persuasion determines what is to be believed. But I would not agree. Indeed, I believe that the characteristic of “good” is as much an inherent part of His nature via the God Model as is anything else. Why?
>
> Well to answer that, it must first be asked exactly what “good” and “evil” really are at their essence? Or in other words, when we say that this is “good” or that is “bad” what are we usually implying about the character of the thing described? In its plainest terms, we use the word “good” when we are expressing a belief that a given thing (person, place or action) is something that ultimately acts as a creative force or acts in a manner that is beneficial to creation. (I.e, it enhances existence in some way.) And when we say that something is “bad” we are expressing the belief that something in some manner ultimately acts as a force for the destruction of creation, or at least in a manner that diminishes the health, beauty, or vitality of creation. (I.e., it degrades existence in some way.)
>
> Now what does all of that have to do with proving that God, if He exists as the God Model describes, must be a force for good? (Bear with me, as this may take a bit to unpack, and may seem like I am perhaps tracing a rabbit trail.) The answer to this entails understanding that the most elemental and comprehensive truth about God as understood in Monotheism, is his simple and underived raw self-existence. In other words EXISTENCE ITSELF *is* his nature. There is no “why” in describing the person or nature of God, for “why” really asks again “What is the origin?” and as we pointed out in the argument for God’s preexistence, God is that one thing that has no origin and thus he cannot be explained beyond the mere facts of who he is. (Which is why in Exodus 3:13-14 Moses is told that his name was “I Am Who I Am” which is a translation of a Hebrew word that means at its essence “to be” or “to exist”.)
>
> The import of this is easy to miss at first glance, because it has ramifications seldom considered. It is a fact that beings and entities act within the realm of possibilities inherent in their makeup. Thus suns behave like suns behave, water does what water does, while microbes, lizards, birds, and humans do the things that others of their same kind do by their very nature. Thus it must also be with the first uncaused cause of all other things. It too must act in accordance with its essential nature. And since God’s very nature is to *exist* then it follows that his actions will be directed towards goals that have as their *ultimate* design either the creation of further existence or the maintenance and/or enhancement of existence already created. And you will note that to act according to this manner, is to act in ways that we tend to call “good” because it results in the unleashing of creative or creation-enhancing forces.
>
> By the same token it follows that God cannot act in a manner contrary to his essential nature of existence. Thus for him to engage in actions that are *ultimately* directed towards the destruction of existence or the degrading of its overall health, vitality, beauty, etc. is a constitutional impossibility. And since such a goal or direction is simply not within the framework of his very being, it is not possible as an actual or potential action by him.
>
> The above Divine Model may be considered an operative framework for justifying the underlying rationality of belief in a Supreme Being as understood by the world’s major monotheistic religions. Doubtless, there could be objections lobbed at any number of the propositions above, but by far the most common objections center on # 6, the goodness of God. Or put another way, the problem of a good God in a Universe full of evil and calamity. I see these objections as dividing into three major categories:
>
> I. Objections to the Necessity of God’s Goodness as a Condition of His Nature
>
> The above argument appeals to God’s essential nature of existence itself as a reason that he must act in ways that further existence or its quality, yet animals and humans likewise share the virtue of existence. And is it not true that animals and people frequently engage in acts contrary to continued existence or its health and beauty? If so, why would God be any different?
>
> This is indeed a logical sounding objection, and if the attribute of existence that is shared by animals and humans is a one-to-one proposition with that attribute of God, then it would surely be correct. But is the quality of existence that imbues God, really the same as it is for finite living beings? To answer this I would refer back to the arguments set forth in #’s 1, 2, & 6 that touch on the necessity of God’s *self-existent* nature. Simply put, by definition there is no “why” that gives rise to God existence or a “why” that would explain his fundamental character. All there really is, is *is*. Thus he is essentially a synonym for absolute existence in its purest form. And as a living synonym, it could only be expected that he would have a one-to-one correspondence with everything related to “is-ness”.
>
> This is not so with animals or humans, because they have a point in time of coming into existence. Thus they are not entities *of* existence, but rather entities resulting *from* existence. This means that contained within their internal makeup is a reference point of nonbeing. And it is from this fact that they have a natural capacity to relate in more than abstract ways to the notion of ideas or actions that would tend to work against existence or towards the extinguishment of that which already exists. So while finite beings share existence as a quality so long as they *continue* to exist, it remains nevertheless, only one possible state for them. And since existence is only provisionally true for them, it is not truly an indivisible part of their very nature in the same way that it would be true for a being of *absolute* existence.
>
> II. Objections to the Goodness of God Based on the Existence of Disaster and Evil
>
> Now we come to the queen of the arguments lodged against the goodness of God, or (somewhat nonsensically) his very existence. The argument goes like this, if there is a God then he is either all powerful, but not all good, since evil exists, or else he is all good, but cannot be all powerful, else he would not allow evil to exist. Impressive logic----so as far as it goes. But does the above go far enough? Does it really allow for *all* possibilities? Let’s examine that by revisiting the concepts set out in proposition # 6.
>
> You will note that it asserts that God’s *ultimate* goal in taking whatever action he takes is to do that which is creative or that which enhances creation. What the above quandary fails to consider, is that bringing about what is ultimately good may often involve many “bad” intermediary consequences. We see this in the earthly realm all the time. The successful athlete very often has to pay in blood, sweat, and injury to obtain a lasting glory in his/her sport of choice. Bad actors are incarcerated or punished to bring about the overall peace and goodness of society at large. Evil regimes have to be toppled for the same reason. Childbirth is a painful process, but it may bring about a future leader who betters the lives of millions. Bacterium are often deadly to life, but they also help bring about the decomposition of plant and animal matter that keeps the planet cleaner and results in rich soils that can feed billions. Continental collisions cause earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and death, but they also cause beautiful mountain landscapes, new islands, and a plethora of other benefits to animals and humans.
>
> From these and endless other examples, it can be seen that a lot of “bad” things can result in an *overall* greater good. Thus it is misguided to attempt to make the formula as simple as: Presence of Bad = Bad or Impotent God with No Good Purpose. Indeed the truth of a matter is often a lot more complicated than first glance might imply. And this is doubtlessly true in attempting to explain why a good and all powerful God, would choose to enable evil to exist as a condition for bringing about his *ultimately* good purposes. But complex or not, I believe that some explanations are indeed possible.
>
> First, the major Monotheistic religions have long believed that God’s original creation was “good” because it was not yet marred by moral evil or physical disaster/evil that would negatively impact living, sentient, creatures. A condition that would only be changed if the most sentient of these creatures were to introduce destructive (evil) choices into the mix. Now in choosing to proceed with making such higher-functioning living creatures, God himself had a choice based on logical necessity. He could either: (1) create living and sentient beings who were only capable of making “choices” that would prove “good” (i.e., creative/creation enhancing) or (2) make such beings with no intellectual or spiritual impediment causing them to only choose the good. One creative course involved making robotic machines with no independent capacity of will beyond the programming he placed within them (as we do traditional computers), whereas the other creative course involved something more refined and enhanced. Namely, the ability to interact fluidly with a changing environment and arrive at non-externally mandated courses of action in response to those changes---be those actions for good or for ill. (As we are now attempting to do by ever-complex computers with artificial intelligence.)
>
> So which plan of creation offers the maximum enhancement of its functional capabilities and makes for its highest potential productivity and beauty? Again, it seems that to ask that question, is to answer it. Moreover, only the latter plan of creation more fully mimics the volitional nature that God possesses to act or not act; constrained only by the confines of whatever possibilities are inherent within his very nature.
>
> Now that’s all well and good you say, but per arguments 4 and 5, God has both the knowledge and the power to interfere with the potentially destructive choices that his volitional creations might make. And since he has apparently chosen to allow them to make these choices anyway, he must *want* there to be evil. But this does not necessarily follow. Because if fails to account for the *inherent* potentiality for the unleashing of destructive choices (evil) that *must* come with offering sentient beings the ability to choose among alternatives in response to differing circumstances in a dynamic environment. Nor is this reality changed, even if God knew beforehand that the enablement of choice *would* lead to bad choices, because the accompanying creation of the highest potentiality for creative good remains a legitimate goal within his inherent nature.
>
> But now you ask, why enable a potentiality for good that he knew would lead to evil instead? But a better question is, who says that good is not yet *destined* to be the endgame? Now it is very true that if God just left things as they are, then the slowly starving boy or girl in the African desert will just live painfully and die to no purpose. As indeed will the many billions, if not trillions, of living beings who have ever suffered or are destined to suffer on planet Earth. But what if God in following his *ultimately* creative/creation enhancing plans also provided a “rescue plan” as the means necessary to ensure that no suffering is purposeless in the end? A plan that If followed, the ravenous effects of suffering are not only undone, but become the basis for a far more exceeding blessing in a future life that features permanent sharing of God’s very nature of *inherent* goodness. (A state usually referred to as “Heaven”.) And if not be followed, there is still no “waste” of the suffering either. For in that case, God actually gives validation and honor to the enhancement of creation that is represented by the choices that have been made. In other words, whenever someone is given a free choice between following God’s rescue plan that leads to only good ultimate outcomes, or else choosing to “enjoy” the negative outcomes ensured by continued bad choices, if they choose the latter, he faithfully honors their choice. (Which is the ultimate creative good extended to an offered choice). Because he is consistent, he honors their bad choice in the same permanent way, and with the same increased intensity of bad experience that he extends to those who chose to follow his rescue plan. (A state usually called “Hell”.)
>
> III. Objections to God’s Goodness Based on Moral Grounds
>
> Now despite all of this, some insist that they know a higher standard of right and wrong than expressed by the way things are. (Yes “are” because evil/disaster continues unabated at this present time no matter *what* you believe about how things got that way.) Or that there must not be a God, because he must be a moral monster to allow people and other sentient beings to suffer even when they manifestly do not deserve it.
>
> Is either claim tenable in a logical sense? For if you know of a higher standard of right and wrong, then you must also be willing and able to state the *objective* basis that leads to your statement being more than just another unvarnished personal opinion. Moreover, you are inherently implying that there is some kind of *absolute* standard, or standards, of right and wrong. But if absolute, then what law of nature made them so? If not a law of nature, upon who’s authority did these standards become absolute? (…Your answers should prove *most* entertaining.)
>
> Now if you reason that there cannot be a God because of the existence of all the monstrous evil in the Universe, then you are simply engaging in a manifest non sequitur. For what possible bearing could the existence of good or evil have on the raw existence of a supreme being? For existence is a simple yes/no binary reality, and is not proven or disproven by moral considerations. Worse, this argument has simply combined bad *logic* with the same unanswerable questions represented by believing (as above) that you can appeal to some higher/absolute standard of right and wrong, with which to judge the character of God. (In short, it would appear that you are attempting to appeal to a *transcendent truth*, in order to deny a *transcendent explanation*.)
>
> In closing, it also seems fitting to ask what has been gained by refusing to accept the *logic* of a divine purpose? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. For if it is true, it is still true, and there is a great hope you are refusing to believe in and embrace. And if it is false? Then all you have gained is an understanding that you came from nothing and will return to nothing, and that somewhere little boys and girls will continue to starve, some persons will always be tortured for someone else’s perverse entertainment, and natural disasters will continue unabated until the ultimate “resolution” of the cold dead Universe that eventually must end it all. If so, congratulations and enjoy! …To the “victor” goes the “spoils”.
>

I believe shortly before he died, Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book whose
central thesis was that if God exists, it is illogical to believe he is
all good. I didn't read the book though I did see him explain the central
thesis when he was making the rounds of the talk shows to plug the book.
Even if one accepts that there is a supreme being who created the universe
as we know it, that doesn't lead to the logical conclusion that he is a
good God. A God who is an SOB answers all the other questions. Also, why
should we assume God is perfect. Going back to George Carlin he said we
know God isn't perfect because it shows in his work. Every mountain is a
different height. Why couldn't God be a screw up.

There is a lot of evil in this world and much of it is caused by humans.
There is also a lot of horrible things that happen that are beyond the
control of humans. Diseases and natural disasters for example which cause
great pain and suffering. Why would a good and loving God who has control
of the universe allow such things to occur to people whom he is supposed
to love? I know. It's like they told us in school. It's a mystery.

HBO has recently run a documentary about Warren Buffet. Near the end he
admits to being an agnostic. He said he doesn't give much thought to what
if anything comes after this life. As he put it, "It might be interesting.
It might not be interesting at all.". That pretty much sums up my feeling
about it. I have no idea what if anything comes after this life and I'm
not going to live my life counting on there being something wonderful
afterwards. I'm going to make the best of what time I have in this life.
If there is a God and that's not good enough for him then I guess I'm
going to hell.

Believers do have one advantage over atheists. If they are wrong, they
will never know. If atheists are wrong, they could be in deep shit.

[Conan The Contrarian]

Bob Harris actually said:

"Too many of us believe only what we WANT to believe - not what the facts
and evidence tell us that we should believe."

Haha!! Bob.....you only what YOU want to believe.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/28/2017 8:57 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> By all means Brock, we should take the word of bronze age goat herders
> who believed in witchcraft and thought the stars and planets revolved
> around Earth, rather than scientists who rely on empirical, verifiable
> evidence.
>
> Science works, Brock, as can be seen by everything around us, from
> computers to our greatly extended life span. Magic doesn't work - NO
> EXCEPTIONS.
>

Except for the WC.

> Consider the MILLIONS who were killed by the plague in ancient times.

No. He could call that the work of the Devil as proof that God exists.
Or punishment for sin, like Sodom and Gomorrah.

> Those people prayed their little hearts out, thinking they must have
> pissed off their god. But "He" never lifted a finger and they dropped
> like flies, for hundreds of years.
>

Remember Noah's Ark. God killed almost all people, but saved a few.

> It wasn't until the rudimentary science of the times, found the real
> cause of the plague, that humanity was released from this deadly
> affliction. Science saved millions, Brock. Your mythical, magic man did
> nothing, as he always does.
>

How do you know God didn't create that pathogen?

> And isn't your reference to an "uncaused first cause" a debate tactic
> meant to allow you to argue that everything has to have been created,
> without telling us who created your magical man in the sky?
>

Something like that. More like Hubris. He IS right, because he MUST be
right.

> This universe began with the "big bang". That has been proven beyond
> doubt. And scientists have been increasingly convinced that it is not

No, it hasn't. And maybe God created the Big Bang. Or maybe Doctor Who
created the Big Bang. Or it was a science class homework assignment.
When the next Big Bang happens future scientists will not know that it
was a science project at MIT gone wrong.

[mainframetech]

The answer to that time honored question is that if god knows all,
s/he doesn't have to tell you, so you have no way of knowing what you're
going to do, and so you have the free will that some say s/he gave you.
It's a matter of perception.

If we knew now what is happening EVERYWHERE, we could predict
EVERYTHING that was going to happen, and EVERY thought anyone was going to
have. Knowing the direction and speed of an asteroid, we can predict it's
every move from that moment on. But not knowing these things means that
to us, it seems like free will. Everything is ordained, but not
necessarily PRE-ordained.

How could little us know that god was good or bad? How could we know
whether an act of god was intended to make things better, but we, in our
little corner of the universe, can't see the big picture and so we don't
know it was for the good? What hubris to think we could determine if god
was a good god, or a bad god.

Or look at it this way. To an all-knowing, all-powerful god everything
is not either bad or good, it just IS. Planets move in their orbits and
there is no good or bad in any one event or thought, there is only the
fact of its existence. There are different layers to this kind of
thinking and you have to define which layer you're on. The all-knowing
level leaves no room for good or bad. Some level down from there and
various acts can be perceived as good or bad from our experience, but not
necessarily someone else's. Another layer may allow that an event or
thought is bad or good to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING. Most religions like
that layer, and are happy to list the acts and whether they're good or
bad.

> There is a lot of evil in this world and much of it is caused by humans.
> There is also a lot of horrible things that happen that are beyond the
> control of humans. Diseases and natural disasters for example which cause
> great pain and suffering. Why would a good and loving God who has control
> of the universe allow such things to occur to people whom he is supposed
> to love? I know. It's like they told us in school. It's a mystery.
>

Is it a mystery why a roulette wheel stops on a particular number?
Not to most people. First you have to assume god, then you have to assume
he throws dice and acts on the result.

> HBO has recently run a documentary about Warren Buffet. Near the end he
> admits to being an agnostic. He said he doesn't give much thought to what
> if anything comes after this life. As he put it, "It might be interesting.
> It might not be interesting at all.". That pretty much sums up my feeling
> about it. I have no idea what if anything comes after this life and I'm
> not going to live my life counting on there being something wonderful
> afterwards. I'm going to make the best of what time I have in this life.
> If there is a God and that's not good enough for him then I guess I'm
> going to hell.
>
> Believers do have one advantage over atheists. If they are wrong, they
> will never know. If atheists are wrong, they could be in deep shit.

So making the best of the life you have left, will you now be dealing
with CTs in a decent fashion? Or does insult rule your roost like Bud?

Chris

[BOZ]

"Oswald is burning in hell"

--DEVIL

[OHLeeRedux]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 5:57:12 PM UTC-8, Robert Harris wrote:
> By all means Brock, we should take the word of bronze age
> goat herders who believed in witchcraft and thought the stars
> and planets revolved around Earth, rather than scientists who
> rely on empirical, verifiable evidence.
>
> Science works, Brock, as can be seen by everything around us,
> from computers to our greatly extended life span. Magic
> doesn't work - NO EXCEPTIONS.
>
>

> Robert Harris


Why do you call everyone "Brock"?

What nefarious scheme are you plotting?

[bigdog]

That I would like to believe.

[Anthony Marsh]

Might be some obscure '80's movie reference.
(oh wait, that's what I do)

[Robert Harris]

I don't call everyone Brock :-)




Robert Harris

[Ace Kefford]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 8:32:58 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:

I thought Lee Harvey Oswald was still alive! Wasn't it Harvey Lee who was
shot (allegedly shot!) in the Dallas police basement? Or was it Henry
Lee? It gets so hard to keep up with the on-going "research".

[claviger]

There are scientific, philosophical, and sentient reasons that indicate a
cosmic power source conceived and fashioned life on Planet Earth.

Mere Christianity
C S Lewis 1952

Gödel's Ontological Proof
Kurt Gödel 1970

Star Wars
George Lucas 1977

The Probability of God
Rev Hugh Montefiori 1985

The Bible Code
Michael Drosin 1997

The Probability of God
Stephen Unwin 2004

Why Science Does Not Disprove God
Amir D. Aczel 2014


An ancient book of recorded history claims a Creative Entity is the power
source that controls the Planet Earth and communicated with human beings
starting in the Paleolithic Era continuing into the Bronze and Iron ages
of mankind. There were reports of Angelic contacts with combatants in the
Six Day War 1967. Bible scholars claim numerous prophecies have already
come true.

[Ace Kefford]

"The Bible Code". It's been a while since I've heard of that numerology
variation. Tanks for the memories.

[BOZ]

Marsh is more righteous than GOD.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 11:30:28 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:

> First thanks to .John for allowing this post on an exceptional basis. Since I understand he intends to keep the window open for only one set of responses, this shall be my last word on the subject in this group. This was originally done in Word, so there may be a few formatting issues.

Since you obviously put some work and thought into this, it deserves a
response from me since I was one of the main offenders of interjecting
this off-topic topic. Even though I dislike the "one-and-done" aspect I
started a few responses that I wasn`t happy with and scrapped. Seems the
more I write the less I like it, so I`ll try cut to the chase with my
rebuttals.

> This last summer, another outburst of debate over the OT subjects of atheism and religion broke out. I had to sign off prematurely, because I ended up resigning from my employer of nearly 2 decades and have been busy ever since looking for my next gig. Rather than go back a try to answer a dozen posts spread out over at least 2 different threads, I decided to start a new one that cuts to the chase.

Glad to see you were able to get some difficulties sorted out so you
could join us once more.

> This debate is not ultimately about who can be trusted more with a weapon or given immense power; nor is it even about comparative levels of morality. (Though those are all good discussions in their own right.) What it really primarily boils down to is objections to belief in the existence (or non-existence) of a god such as traditional monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) believe exists.
>
> Those who object to such a concept, can have their crack at “learning” us all something by presenting their best objections, but only after I present a case for the monotheistic concept of God. But first let’s set the proper stage…
>
> What this is not:
> This is not a debate about any *particular* monotheistic religion---most especially beliefs and teachings that are particular to that religion only, and not shared generally by all monotheists. So if you insist on debating the Torah, the Christian Bible, or the Koran or whether there really was a Great Flood or whether Mohammad was a good or bad man, then you will have to find someone else to play along, ‘cause that is beside the points I think must first be addressed for that sort of thing to even be relevant.
>
> What this is:
> This is a presentation and debate about the basic concepts related to the *idea* of God *himself*, that are shared by all major monotheistic religions. The reason is simple. In many cases their shared nature is mute testimony to the fact that these concepts come, not merely from the supposed divine revelation each sect claims, but from the very *notion* of such a God. (NOTE: That does not mean that all shared aspects come from the basic concept of “God”, as some are cases of shared/similar stories that came about because Christianity has is roots in ancient Judaism, and Islam sprang from a cultural milieu that was influenced by both religions and features some shared stories/characters from each.)
>
> The Divine “Model”
> Believers and others throw the word “God” around all the time, but what does a well-informed monotheist even mean when he refers to basic concept of “God”? I think the basics can fit into what I like to call a divine “God Model”. This basic set of ideas invariably involves certain sets of definite logical propositions. It is my position that virtually *all* objections to such a God find plausible answers in the very model *itself*. Here are the aspects I see as inherent in the basic God Model:
>
> 1. God is Preexistent:
> Monotheism begins with the self-evident notion that whatever begins to be has a beginning.

Science starts with the notion that it is unwise to make assumptions
without facts. Already there is an assumption made that is considered
"self-evident" that has no support. In fact, all available evidence runs
contrary. We know of no way that matter can be created, that is our
knowledge base as things stand now. This would be supportive of the idea
that all matter has always existed and has no beginning. How can this be?
How can God be? There just isn`t enough information to come to informed
conclusions.

> In short, for everything we see around us, we humans properly ask “What is the origin?” (I.e., “Where did that come from?”) In fact, that is what “science” is ultimately interested in understanding and explaining for any phenomenon encountered. And yet is this not ultimately destined to be a futile pursuit? Because no matter how far back one goes with provisional (finite) causes, the next logical question will always be, “And where did THAT come from?”

Science at least has the process right, the Scientific Method yields
tangible results and actual answers. Faith and superstition`s track record
does not show such results. Science trudging along looking for answers is
better than the intellectually bankrupt opinion that religion tells us all
we need to know.

> And so all of us, whether theist or non-theist, at some point have to yield to a certain inescapable logic. SOMEWHERE, at some POINT, there had to be at least *one* thing that had no origin. (Unless one wants to accept that there can somehow be an infinite regress of finite causes; a position that few philosophers of any stripe believe is rational, since, for example, it is difficult to explain how we ever arrived in place and time at “today” from an infinite chain of finite things that themselves must somehow make an infinite journey in space and time.) And it is at this juncture that all monotheistic religions have concluded, that there must be a *first* uncaused cause (i.e, infinite) cause of all other finite things. Fine. But of what nature would such a cause even be?
>
> 2. God is Immaterial (Supernatural):
> Once the logical inevitability of a ultimate uncaused first cause of all *other* things is accepted, what then is most logical to assume that its nature must be? The first thought could well be that it too must be a material/physical thing like the Universe that sprang from it. But is that the most likely thing logically, based on what we observe about all other physical things around us?

The problem with going with the supernatural as I see it is how can it
be logical to advance as an answer something that cannot be shown to even
be a valid option? No supernatural occurrence as never been documented. So
how can it be logical to accept an idea with no support as an answer?

Also, this approach is a begged question and circular reasoning, "my
model requires the supernatural so the supernatural must be possible". To
really come to a correct answer you need facts, data, something to work
with, figuring alone devoid of evidence just doesn`t cut it.

I think the analogy I used previously works, the Vikings thought the
thunder and lightning was caused by Odin striking his anvil. With their
limited knowledge this supernatural explanation probably made sense, they
saw things in their world they could apply. But there was no way they were
going to come up to the correct answer (negative and positive charged ions
in the atmosphere), they just didn`t have those kinds of facts to work
with. And I think that is where we are right now trying to explain the
existence of everything, almost devoid of the facts necessary to come to
an informed conclusion. But that doesn`t mean we should fall into the same
trap as the Vikings did, and accept the supernatural. We`ve only been
doing this "science" thing for a very short period of time, and have
discovered some amazing things. Our knowledge has been growing in leaps
and bounds and seems to be accelerating exponentially. If we don`t wipe
ourselves out in some religious-inspired holocaust we might get a chance
to follow the facts where they lead, possibly to a supernatural supreme
being. But it will have to be facts that take us there, not figuring ir
wishful thinking.

I see a lot of parallels to this kind of thinking and conspiracy
hobbyists thinking. Their ideas don`t have to be good or make sense, and
neither does God, he gets the same pass. We don`t question God`s goodness
as written, we put the word "good" on trial. I think most people would
agree that rape, slavery and genocide are immoral, yet God advocates and
endorses such activities. If these things are not immoral that what is the
point of morality? If the worst behavior imaginable can be considered
"good" there are no standards of morality left to judge anything.

> In closing, it also seems fitting to ask what has been gained by refusing to accept the *logic* of a divine purpose? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. For if it is true, it is still true, and there is a great hope you are refusing to believe in and embrace. And if it is false?

Yes, lets assume it is false. Then great evil has been perpetuated on
humanity for nothing. Millions have died because of a false ideas,
millions have suffered because of false ideas and everything ever done to
appease non-existent beings of the spiritual world has been for naught. Is
this a benign concept? Has the belief in the supernatural not had a severe
downside?

> Then all you have gained is an understanding that you came from nothing and will return to nothing, and that somewhere little boys and girls will continue to starve, some persons will always be tortured for someone else’s perverse entertainment, and natural disasters will continue unabated until the ultimate “resolution” of the cold dead Universe that eventually must end it all. If so, congratulations and enjoy! …To the “victor” goes the “spoils”.

You need to believe there is reason and meaning behind these things you
mention, I don`t see it as a requirement. And if there is reason and
meaning to be be found, I wouldn`t trust my fellow man`s claims to be able
to discern it. Him, I am familiar with.

Very close to deleting this response also, not happy with it at all.
Philosophy is a bit esoteric to me.

> BT George