Morality doesn't make sense.

[FredVegrox]

The strangest part of the discussion I encounter is the claim that maybe the universe had no beginning. The evidence of the big bang doesn't mean anything, for that claim. All the real evidence is with outward expansion, and the further away the more rapid, indicated of every galactic system in the universe. It having a start indicates it was started, and that is what is being avoided.

[FredVegrox]

God is really more evident with having faith that God shows care for us.

[FredVegrox]

There is necessary existence, that must be, and this is why there is any existence at all, the necessary existence bringing any other existence into being, the necessary existence always existing and existing everywhere and having no limit, being necessary, which necessary existence is. If this were not so, nothing would exist. Particles and anti-particles coming into existence which is offered as an explanation is not from nothing, something that can have that would be existing then, not being nothing. And necessary existence would be greater than that. There is more that can be said about necessary existence, though the logic would leave some behind.

[FredVegrox]

So, no one can logically argue against God. That is one thing, that I have a position on, that those who will not agree cannot argue against. So...
Want anything else?
What about going barefoot? Why not?

[FredVegrox]

The biggest difference with others, besides the vegan choices, and maybe more than that, is the position I have on the failure of stewardship to the earth. There isn't any, adequate that is, for avoiding catastrophe ahead, that we approach more rapidly in fact, to the natural world with our civilization, and catastrophe back onto our civilization, which will be critical to it. This is not far off. This position I take is not popular though I say things for effectively avoiding what is worse for us.

[FredVegrox]

A couple of decades ago I watched this being shown originally on television, I remember it as I made a video recording of it, and the time when I watched it with my father. There is great meaning with this. Think of all the universe coming from the big bang with all the separate parameters just right that permits any planet at all to develop with life being possible still, *AND* that there is this complexity of mathematics all along, never known but to maybe be discovered eventually by inhabitants of a planet with enough intelligence and developed technology, also all made possible. And there is not an intelligent Creator behind that? Too boggling to realistically imagine. It is not greater faith to accept there is the Creator that is the unlimited necessary existence behind everything, with all that logical intelligence already. There was never consideration of the Creator being a simple being.
https://youtu.be/DyeR19m8gGk

[brimstoneSalad]

So, no one can logically argue against God. That is one thing, that I have a position on, that those who will not agree cannot argue against.

It depends on how "god" is defined. Most modern conventional definitions (particularly of a singular god) result in a logical contradiction in and of themselves or with other known and necessary facts of the universe.

The classical notions of gods, like those of the Greeks or Norse or other ancient cultures, can be logically consistent.

I have not seen any definition of a monotheistic superlative god that has held up, and I think in the linguistic and theological context of that word usage that anything else is a special definition which is kind of stretching at best.
For instance: "God is love, love exists, therefore god exists" kind of arguments. Presuming god is only and exactly equivalent to love doesn't comport with real life casual or professional usage.
I think if you understand god as something like the force of love in the universe, it's less confusing to just talk about the force of love and drop the baggage linking organized religion and mythology to the word "god", but then again if you like a challenge maybe your goal is to claim the word and I don't know if that's a bad thing or not.

[FredVegrox]

So, no one can logically argue against God. That is one thing, that I have a position on, that those who will not agree cannot argue against.

It depends on how "god" is defined. Most modern conventional definitions (particularly of a singular god) result in a logical contradiction in and of themselves or with other known and necessary facts of the universe.

The classical notions of gods, like those of the Greeks or Norse or other ancient cultures, can be logically consistent.

I have not seen any definition of a monotheistic superlative god that has held up, and I think in the linguistic and theological context of that word usage that anything else is a special definition which is kind of stretching at best.
For instance: "God is love, love exists, therefore god exists" kind of arguments. Presuming god is only and exactly equivalent to love doesn't comport with real life casual or professional usage.
I think if you understand god as something like the force of love in the universe, it's less confusing to just talk about the force of love and drop the baggage linking organized religion and mythology to the word "god", but then again if you like a challenge maybe your goal is to claim the word and I don't know if that's a bad thing or not.

Whatever you mean by modern conventional definition of God that results in logical contradiction is not what I am including. A real contradiction is anything starting without anything preceding it to cause that. The necessary existence is alone sufficient explanation, that anything else started, while necessary existence is eternal and everywhere, without any interruption. Anything else has a contradiction to the logic. And with the universe starting, as scientists conclude it once did, the independent parameters were all just right, for our world with us, or any world at all with any life, to be possible at all. A slight difference in the parameters the universe would have to start with would make any of that impossible. There is intelligence and power sufficient for making the universe. The necessary existence having that intelligence and power has it then without any limit. Calling this God only makes sense. It does not have to correspond to any conventional definition of anyone. What do you find to not be logical about this?

Seeing God this way, and recognizing care for provision is indicated, would lead to concluding God who is over all the whole universe throughout cares for life, and values life in the universe. Then God, necessary existence, is not limited with that. It is not one species on one world God cares about. God cares for and provides for all life, to be here in the universe.

Where is there contradiction in this?

How is there meaningful stuff about us without God that I show can be logically acknowledged? We are aware, with real consciousness, we love, and care, though generally in limited ways. How does any of that happen?

[brimstoneSalad]

A real contradiction is anything starting without anything preceding it to cause that.

That's not a contradiction, it's an assumption. That's different. Quantum events, including vacuum fluctuations, are necessarily uncaused.

A slight difference in the parameters the universe would have to start with would make any of that impossible.

That may not be true, but we also do not know that other parameters are even possible.
There's an emergent elegance to physics as we are coming to understand it, where the laws that are are there because they're necessary -- not for life necessarily, but kind of just for consistency. It's something we're expecting as we home in on unified field theorem. That's something I wouldn't bet against, and the contrary definitely isn't an argument for conscious fine tuning. Even if unified field turned out to be inelegant, the simplest interpretation of quantum physics is the many worlds interpretation (or MWI), and it's easy to imagine an uncountable number of universes with different parameters (if it's possible for the parameters to be different) some of which have life without any luck involved.

What do you find to not be logical about this?

I understand how you are reasoning it, but none of that corresponds to what we know about physics or to what we don't know but could be. There are a bunch of assumptions there that kind of beg the question once you put names to them.
The other assumption is that -- even if there were a single universe, and even if it required fine tuning as such (all things both unlikely and unlikely to be provable in any way)-- why would it have to be something we would recognize as intelligent doing the job? And where did that thing come from? If it just always existed, then what could have caused it to decide to start the universe after an infinite amount of time? If it's outside of time, how can it act?
There are more logical problems that follow from assumptions of intelligence than the argument claims to resolve (but does not in fact resolve).

Some of the rigid ideas about a god being like us are what I'm talking about. However I know your heart is in the right place. If that inspires you to see and do more good in the world, that's what matters right?
I do worry some people can take the god thing in a bad direction, so there's risk to the general belief and particularly to assigning certain characteristics to said god.

How is there meaningful stuff about us without God that I show can be logically acknowledged? We are aware, with real consciousness, we love, and care, though generally in limited ways. How does any of that happen?

It's emergent, which doesn't make it any less beautiful or important. Think of life more as a law of the universe that stems from logic itself and doesn't have to be hand made because it's a fundamental part of reality.