Article 1. GOOD AFTERNOON MR. DAWKINS: There Is One Who Is Good
************************************************
This is “Good Afternoon”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMkJIR9pX1w
This is “The God Delusion Debate”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF5bPI92-5o
*************************************************
The original debate was held on October 3, 2007.
AGAINST GOD was Atheist Richard Dawkins, author of the 2006 book called “The God Delusion.”
FOR GOD was Christian mathematics expert John Lennox.
In the present day I am interjecting myself into the debate in the FOR GOD corner.
But I’m not debating about religion.
I don’t want to argue with anyone about matters of personal choice.
This is a website about THE LAWS of the universe.
And I will show that ACKNOWLEDGING GOD’S EXISTENCE—
AND ALSO, I WILL SHOW, THE EXISTENCE OF GOOD AND EVIL—
IS NOT A MATTER OF PERSONAL CHOICE
IT IS A MATTER OF SCIENCE
IF A PERSON WANTS TO CALL THEMSELVES AN HONEST PERSON AND SCIENTIST.
There’s no way to KICK GOD AND GOOD AND EVIL OUT OF SCIENCE.
“In the Beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” —John 1:1 (American Standard Version translation)
That citation by John Lennox was Big Bang on!
NOTE that I am not citing John 1:1 as proof of anything, but rather, I am citing John 1:1 because I CAN PROVE GOD’S EXISTENCE AND GOD’S ETERNAL-NESS *and* I CAN PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE WORDS AT JOHN 1:1 by proving THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD “GOOD.”
So GOOD is the word of the day!
But GOOD can only be understood by doing some math first.
The mathematical axiom upon which I will being resting my “good” case is this: Mutually exclusive events must be dependent events, not independent events.
Source: BYJUS.com, regarding “Mutually Exclusive Events”:
“Mutually exclusive events are those that do not occur at the same time. For example, when a coin is tossed then the result will be either head or tail, but we cannot get both the results….If two events are mutually exclusive, they are not independent. Also, independent events cannot be mutually exclusive.”
The Biblical character of Jesus also provides an example of mutually exclusive events in the metaphor of trees and fruit, at Matthew 7:17-18 (American Standard Version translation):
“[E]very good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
This means that “good” is the absence of “evil,” and likewise that “evil” is the absence of “good.”
OK so that’s the “good” math.
Next I will show that “good” is one thing, not a plurality of things.
The SIGNIFICANCE of the proof that “good” is one thing, not a plurality of things, is that ”evil,” which may be any number of things, must be dependent-upon “good,” but not vice-versa (meaning that “good” must be Absolute, not dependent-upon “evil.”)
*******************BEGIN JESUS DETOUR********************
I’m still not talking-about RELIGION.
I’m still talking about THE LAWS of the universe.
But I am going to be talking about God in this “Jesus Detour,” and I realize that I haven’t yet proven God’s existence.
But I respectfully request the liberty to conduct some discussion about God now.
The unproven introduction of God now is Necessary to highlight a LEGAL ISSUE that gives us a LEGAL MYSTERY (conventionally called “The Problem of Evil”) we must solve (as confirmed by Wikipedia, “If God lacks…omnibenevolence—then the logical problem of evil can be resolved”), and it’s also Necessary to VERIFY THE LEGAL CREDIBILITY OF JESUS’S WORDS.
Then I will prove God’s existence AND solve the LEGAL MYSTERY (“The Problem of Evil”) later in the blog post, by proving that God lacks omnibenevolence.
LEGAL ISSUE.
The Biblical character of Jesus addresses the issue of “good” being one thing, not a plurality of things, at Mark 10:18, saying (in the American Standard Version translation):“Why callest…me good? none is good save one, even God.”
NOTE that the different translations of Mark 10:18 are semantically different, and the translations that call God “the good one” are in direct conflict with John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one,” discussed below), because if Jesus and the Father are one, then neither of them is “the good one” according to Jesus.
In other words, if Jesus is not “the good one” then neither is The Father (God), because according to Jesus, JESUS AND THE FATHER ARE ONE.
But that’s fine; I submit that Jesus’s words are confirmation that Jesus understood “The Problem of Evil,” and intended to resolve it by affirming God’s lack of omnibenevolence.
And I will independently show later in the post (in the ANSWER to THE PROBLEM OF EVIL) HOW, as a matter of PHYSICS, it is possible for Jesus/God to NOT be “the good one” (in other words, to lack omnibenevolence) but yet still “bear good fruit.”
ALSO NOTE that I am not citing Jesus’s words as proof of my claim that “good” is one thing, not a plurality of things. After this JESUS DETOUR, I will make my own LEGAL aka LOGICAL proof of my claim that “good” is one thing, not a plurality of things.
LEGAL MYSTERY aka THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
THE REASON I CITE JESUS’S WORDS ABOUT THE SINGULARITY OF GOOD-NESS is because IF JESUS IS CORRECT THAT GOOD IS ONE THING (and Christians had better not be arguing with him) AND IF JESUS SAYS THAT HE IS NOT GOOD (that’s what he said), THEN BY JESUS’S WORDS IN THE METAPHOR OF TREES AND FRUIT at Matthew 7:17-18, JESUS BEARS EVIL FRUIT NOT GOOD FRUIT.
But that’s impossible if Jesus is a credible source of information about THE LAWS of the universe!
VERIFYING THE LEGAL CREDIBILITY OF JESUS’S WORDS.
So it’s up to me to ESTABLISH THAT JESUS IS A CREDIBLE SOURCE about THE LAWS of the universe if I want to cite Jesus’s words about “good” being one thing as an “independent verification” of my own conclusion about “good” being one thing.
But the Biblical story of Jesus is HEARSAY; it is not a story told (or “signed”) by Jesus, it is a story told by third parties who are not available for cross-examination.
In all courts of general jurisdiction in the USA, if hearsay is unreliable then it’s INADMISSIBLE AS PROOF OF THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.
And in the “Age of Reason,” Thomas Paine did such a thorough job of enumerating the places where the hearsay in the New Testament regarding the matter of Jesus’s life-and-death story is unreliable that I would hasten to that conclusion.
BUT BE THE EVIL FRUIT OF UNRELIABLE HEARSAY ABOUT GOD as it may, JESUS’S WORDS at Mark 10:18 ABOUT JESUS NOT BEING GOOD do not fall into the category of UNRELIABLE HEARSAY if we can logically prove that GOD is the author of the gospels.
This is because THE CHARACTER OF JESUS IS SAID TO BE THE CHARACTER OF GOD (see, e.g., “I and the Father are one” at John 10:30, American Standard Version translation; note all of the translations of John 10:30 are semantically identical), so the words of Jesus written by God would NOT BE HEARSAY.
We could simply EVALUATE JESUS’S WORDS AGAINST INDEPENDENTLY-KNOWN TRUTHS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE WORDS, then we could rely on Jesus’s words as LEGAL (SCIENTIFIC) EVIDENCE.
But still, the words written by God that were attributed to non-God Biblical characters WOULD STILL BE HEARSAY because God put those words in the mouths of third parties who are not available for cross-examination because of DEATH, which makes them UNRELIABLE WITNESSES TO JESUS’S STORY, by definition, unless we are going to say that it’s RIGHT TO KILL SOMEONE FOR BEING RIGHT, which I submit is FALSE, and that’s a conclusion that I separately verify in Article 2 (HYAKUJO’S FOX: Case 2 in “The Gateless Gate” Book of Zen Koans by Mumon.)
So let’s get down to business.
Again, if we can logically prove that God is the author of the gospels, then we don’t have to “throw away” the words of Jesus on the grounds of UNRELIABLE HEARSAY, but we do still have to “independently verify” the Truth of every matter Jesus spoke-about, because Jesus ominously said point-blank that his job is not to “do good.”
Jesus’s words at Mark 10:18 (“Why callest…me good? none is good save one“) are especially significant because Jesus also said “I and the Father are one” at John 10:30 (American Standard Version translation; note all of the translations of John 10:30 are semantically identical), and also according to Jesus at Matthew 7:17-18, trees that bear good fruit and trees that bear evil fruit are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, so IT SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ONE WHO IS NOT GOOD TO PRODUCE GOOD FRUIT, AND WE SHOULD HAVE TO CALL JESUS EVIL IF WE DID NOT CALL HIM GOOD!
So we’ve got to SOLVE THIS LEGAL MYSTERY aka THE PROBLEM OF EVIL if we want to avoid following false prophets AND if we want to avoid committing the worst possible blasphemy AND if we want to avoid turning a blind eye to LEGALLY-RELEVANT MATERIAL that is of worldwide public interest!
Question: Do we find fault with Jesus’s understanding at Matthew 7:17-18 of THE MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION OF MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE EVENTS and his use of the metaphor of good and corrupt trees, which bear good and evil fruit respectively, to prove his knowledge?
Jesus: [Matthew 7:17-18, American Standard Version translation] [E]very good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
Answer: No, there is no fault to find with Jesus’s knowledge of good and evil and their mathematical (mutually exclusive) relationship.
So we know that Jesus’s words couldn’t have been written by A LUNATIC who doesn’t know good from evil from a poached egg!
And that further tells us that the author of Jesus’s words WAS NOT CONFUSED about HOW TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE either!
This means that when the author put the words “I and the Father are one” into Jesus’s mouth at John 10:30, there was NO CONFUSION in the author’s mind about what was being said.
All right stay with me now—
or rather I should say stay with C.S. Lewis, because this is his “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?” TRILEMMA logic that I’m borrowing from his book “Mere Christianity”—
because if the author of Jesus’s words wasn’t A LUNATIC or A SEVERELY CONFUSED HYPOCRITICAL INDIVIDUAL WITH WEAK PEOPLE-IDENTIFICATION SKILLS WHO SINCERELY BELIEVED HIMSELF TO BE A GREAT EXPERT MORAL PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILER (which would be the same difference as being A LUNATIC), then the author of Jesus’s words was either A LIAR or GOD.
C.S. Lewis: “I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about [Jesus]: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man…[who] said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice….You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
OK so we’ve noted already that there is no fault to find with Jesus’s knowledge of good and evil and their mathematical (mutually-exclusive) relationship, so there’s NO LUNATIC there and NO LIE there either.
Then regarding Jesus’s moral teachings, which boil-down to “love God” and “treat people the way you want to be treated,” there is nothing sus, by which I mean that if a person always followed Jesus’s actual moral teachings, then that person could not go wrong in the present-day, regardless of whether or not 2,000 years ago Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified by Pontius Pilate on a cross or a stavros and died and was buried, then on the third day arose from the dead and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
So we see that the character of Jesus is not the character of A LIAR.
This means that that author of Jesus’s words must be GOD.
But Jesus’s words were “quoted” by the putative authors of “the gospels”: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John!
Ergo, the author of “the gospels” must be GOD.
Yet the character of Jesus appears in a story that is holier than Swiss cheese!
And that’s A CONTRADICTION that demands an explanation.
We already figured-out, above, that words about God spoken-by non-God characters are properly called HEARSAY, and are with few exceptions UNRELIABLE HEARSAY, and therefore cannot be relied-upon to prove the Truth of the matter unless we can independently verify the Truth of the matter by other means.
But it’s weird because the words about God that God puts in the mouth of non-God characters are HEARSAY CREATED BY GOD!
And that’s fine, and in fact it gives us all the more reason to BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS, because once we figure-out that God is creating hearsay about the murder-torture of God, then that smacks of A LEGAL TEST that we want to PASS, not flunk, and “pointing the finger at God” and crying “UNFAIR!”—trying to CENSOR OR CENSURE GOD—is not going to get us anywhere!
But what about the NON-HEARSAY words God writes and puts in the mouth of “God characters” such as Jesus?
CAN GOD LIE in the course of fulfilling “official” duties? Is the natural question.
The answer is that if God could not lie TO A LIAR then that would make it impossible for God to do Justice and save honest people from liars!
And so we must conclude that it’s not only POSSIBLE for God to lie in the course of conducting “official” business, it’s NECESSARY sometimes.
But IS IT GOOD TO LIE in the course of fulfilling “official” duties? Is a different question altogether.
The answer is clearly NO, LYING IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO FULFILL PUBLIC DUTIES.
And let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about lying being a noble virtue!
How did Immanuel Kant put it?
Mr. Kant said: “If the truth shall kill them, let them die!”
But again, INJUSTICE may be done if what is DESERVED is A LIE and what is given by God is THE TRUTH; in that case THE LIE would be EYE-FOR-EYE JUSTICE and the Truth would be AN UNDESERVED GIFT.
God giving the gift of mercy to the corrupt WHILE LEAVING-OUT THE DUE JUSTICE is God making a sacrifice of the innocent to benefit the guilty!
So while it’s possible for A LIE and THE TRUTH to both be given by God in the interest of the due administration of Justice—and in fact, that would fully explain the mixed-bag of Truth and fiction in the gospels, which C.S. Lewis’s logic informs us must have been authored by God—the receipt of THE TRUTH does not obviate the Necessity for God to deliver THE LIE as well.
But again, THE LIE IS NOT GOOD, by definition (and also again, let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about lying being a noble virtue), and so therefore THE LIE-TELLER IS NOT GOOD, even God.
WELL THEN THAT IS THE HEART OF THE LEGAL MYSTERY aka THE PROBLEM OF EVIL THAT WE MUST EXPLAIN, because we can’t violate COMMON SENSE and say that GOD IS EVIL!
FINAL JEOPARDY QUESTION in re: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL:
HOW IT IS POSSIBLE FOR BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING TWO THINGS TO BE TRUE?
Thing #1, Jesus, who is one with the Father (see John 10:30), is not good (see Mark 10:18);
and
Thing #2, Jesus/The Father can bringeth forth good fruit without “being good” per se
The problem is that according to Jesus/The Father at Matthew 7:17-18 good fruit and evil fruit are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, so therefore as a matter of mathematics IT SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ONE WHO IS NOT GOOD TO BRINGETH FORTH GOOD FRUIT!
To repeat: THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN because we can’t THROW-AWAY JESUS’S WORDS without CAUSE and saying “JESUS IS EVIL” is going to cause us to FLUNK the test of REASON not PASS!
So we have to figure-out HOW IT IS POSSIBLE FOR JESUS (GOD) TO BEAR GOOD FRUIT YET NOT BE THE ONE GOOD THING ITSELF.
When we figure that out, then we will have SOLVED “THE PROBLEM OF EVIL”!
BUT IT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM THE PROOF THAT “GOOD” IS ONE THING, NOT A PLURALITY OF THINGS, so I am going to POSTPONE “THE PROBLEM OF EVIL” thought-project about HOW IT IS POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO BEAR GOOD FRUIT YET NOT BE “THE ONE GOOD THING,” and I will discuss the answer below after God’s existence has been proven.
*******************END OF JESUS DETOUR********************
NOW I will independently prove my claim that there is only one way to “be good” (to “bringeth forth good fruit,” so to speak) in any given situation, not a number of different ways to “be good” within a certain known set of facts.
In other words, MY CLAIM is that the definition of “good” is “the ONE THING that is not evil,” where evil may be AMORAL, meaning incapable of good-ness, or evil may be IMMORAL, meaning lacking good-ness on purpose.
Here RECALL from the “good” math discussion above that good and evil are examples of mutually exclusive events—so therefore they cannot be independent events—so if “good is the one thing that is not evil,” then good must be THE STANDARD by which evil is identified! This further tells us that evil must be DEPENDENT on good, but good cannot be DEPENDENT on evil, because it would be LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the one good thing that enables identification of a plurality of evil things to depend-upon the plurality of evil things for its existence.
So MY CLAIM is that another way to describe the relationship between good and evil is to say that good is ABSOLUTE and evil is RELATIVE to good.
All right, now with all of that having been said, here’s the LEGAL CASE aka the LOGIC in support of MY CLAIM that it is proper to conclude that good is SINGULAR and ABSOLUTE and evil is PLURAL and RELATIVE to good:
Anyone who argues that there is more than one way to define the word GOOD shuts themselves out of the “debate” by declaring about themself: “I’M DELUSIONAL,” to borrow Richard Dawkins’ word.
Explanation: If there are multiple standards of JUDGMENT about what is “right” (good) and what is “wrong” (evil) on a given set of facts, then the standards themselves are MEANINGLESS, and LOGIC ITSELF ceases to exist!
In other words, to say that there are “multiple goods” in any given situation is to destroy the very FUNCTION of good, which is to SET THE STANDARD by which all things (good and evil) are JUDGED.
Go-ahead and “check my math” by criticizing that conclusion.
For example, go-ahead and TEST ME by saying some version of the following to me:
“NO, Frank, you are WRONG to say that GOOD MUST BE ONE THING on a given set of facts, and I am RIGHT to say that GOOD MIGHT BE A PLURALITY OF THINGS!”
First you see that you lose that argument automatically, because that argument inherently insists that you could not possibly be RIGHT, since if the argument is CORRECT and there are MULTIPLE STANDARDS for good-ness, then there is no such thing as RIGHT-ness!
Second you also see that the argument does not hurt my case at all, because I am admitting the POSSIBILITY that you, my critic, are correct, and I am SEARCHING TOGETHER WITH YOU, MY CRITIC, FOR THE ONE GOOD ANSWER.
So surely as a matter of fairness in the “debate,” I RECEIVE from my critic in the SAME MEASURE that I GIVE to my critic.
What I mean by RECEIVING from my critic in the SAME MEASURE that I GIVE to my critic is that if I GIVE the use of LOGIC to my critic to enable my critic to prove that they are RIGHT, then I must RECEIVE from my critic the SAME OPPORTUNITY to use LOGIC against the critic to prove that I am RIGHT.
SO THE PROBLEM IS that if my critic disavows the existence of LOGIC itself by saying some version of: “I AM RIGHT THAT THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER TO EVERY QUESTION” in the course of making a “logical” argument to ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RIGHT-NESS and my wrong-ness, then the critic DENIES ME THE USE OF LOGIC to establish MY RIGHT-NESS, and that causes the critic to lose their argument automatically because that is CORRUPT, NOT FAIR.
As a condition of “debating,” the critic is forcing me to agree that THE IMPOSSIBLE—them being ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that there are no ABSOLUTE right answers—is POSSIBLE!
As a condition of “debating,” the critic is FORCING ME TO RIDE OFF INTO THEIR DELUSIONAL SUNSET WITH THEM.
No!
The critic cannot even follow their own line of reasoning to win their own argument!
I most certainly am not obliged to follow that critic anywhere!
That critic makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me or for anyone else to follow their line of reasoning to get to the state of RIGHT-NESS.
Ergo, that critic cannot possibly be RIGHT.
The only thing that critic is actually PROVING is that it’s impossible for the critic themself to KNOW if the critic is right or wrong.
“SO SIT DOWN IF YOU DON’T KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG (if you’re DELUSIONAL, as Richard Dawkins puts it) AND LET THE RATIONAL PEOPLE TALK!” is the only LOGICAL response to that critic.
There are limitless ways to be wrong (evil), but there is only one way to be right (good) on any given set of facts.
End of proof.
Now let’s complete the 6-STEP PROOF of God’s existence.
Step 1. We NOTE that we’ve logically proven the definitions of the WORDS good and evil.
Step 2. We RECALL that evil must be RELATIVE-TO good, and good must be ABSOLUTE.
Step 3. We SEE (see Step 2) that IF A PHYSICAL EVIL ENTITY CAN BE FOUND IN THE WORLD, then the existence of a REAL GOOD ENTITY will also be proven, because the RELATIVE (evil) does not exist INDEPENDENT from what it is relative-to (good.)
Step 4. We KNOW that God would be a real good entity, and we explain our LOGIC as follows: since good is ONE THING, and it’s a Truism that God could not be WRONG (we think about that statement: any critic making the argument that God does not know RIGHT from WRONG can simply be ignored), ergo, we KNOW that God would be RIGHT, and we RECALL that we have proven that there is only one way to be RIGHT on any given set of facts (any critic making the argument that the critic is RIGHT that there is no certain way to be RIGHT loses that argument automatically), so therefore we KNOW that God would be a real good entity.
Step 5. We RECALL Christianity, and we DISCOVER that Christians are the proof that a physical evil entity can be found in the world, because Christians tell us (in their own words, not mine) that Jesus died “to take away” their SINS and SAVE the Christians from being punished for those same sins, but we KNOW that it would be UNNECESSARY for Jesus to be tortured to death to take away a Christian’s GOOD-ness to save the Christian from being punished for that same GOOD-ness, ERGO, sin and evil are SYNONYMS for all logical intents and purposes, and we SEE (see Step 3) that Christians are “living proof” that a physical evil entity exists in the world.
Step 6. ERGO, we SEE (see Step 3) that a real good entity exists, and we also SEE (see Step 4) that God exists.
“In the beginning, there was the [good] Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” —John 1:1
Going back to the beginning of this post to reference (and finish!) the discussion of the October 3, 2007 debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, we nail the coffin shut on Richard Dawkins’s loss, but we can’t accurately say that John Lennox “won” the debate.
The problem with John Lennox’s presentation in the debate was not that he was wrong, but rather, the problem was that John Lennox never “closed the loop” and told the audience about the synonymity that is actual one-ness between the Word good and the eternal God.
More specifically, the explanation of WHY God = good = eternal requires proving the definitions of the WORDS good and evil, and those proofs were absent from John Lennox’s presentation.
So that was a problem, but now it’s been fixed.
NOTE, however, that I didn’t forget THE JESUS DETOUR we took above!
WE KNOW that is not enough to simply say “God is good,” because based-on what we have logically proven from the words of the Biblical character of Jesus, we must also answer the question about THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: “HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR GOD-THE-FATHER TO BEAR GOOD FRUIT YET NOT BE THE ONE GOOD THING ITSELF?”
There is a Relatively simple answer to THE PROBLEM OF EVIL question, but the explanation requires referencing “facts not yet in-evidence,” so the explanation will have to wait for a little while longer.
FOR NOW let’s take this opportunity we’ve been given by Richard Dawkins to expose and annihilate the illogic behind the “Who created God?” question.
Technically, there is no need to engage in the “Who created God?” discussion, because the proof of God’s existence makes that question moot.
IT IS TRUE THAT GOD EXISTS, ergo, it would be impossible for God to have been created, because that would NEGATE THE ABSOLUTE-NESS OF GOOD-NESS by making God RELATIVE to something else.
BUT STILL, at first it’s difficult to imagine that God and “the universe” are not two independent things!
It would be impossible for God and ”the universe” to be two independent things, because it would be impossible for God to have been created (again, that would negate the Absolute-ness of GOOD-ness by making God RELATIVE to something else), which means that the universe was “made from” God.
In other words, the universe was not only MADE BY God, the universe had to be MADE-OF God, so the universe must be made-of what God is made-of!
When we erroneously envision God as being a “separate thing” from the universe, then we have difficulty picturing the universe as being merely a part of the ETERNAL real good entity called “God,” sort-of like the way our blood is a part of our body yet it can also circulate “outside” of our body.
Picture dialysis:
The dialysis analogy is imperfect because the material body and its material parts (including the blood) and the dialysis machine are all in the same 3-dimensional world of matter.
But it would be impossible for the entirety of the real good entity called “God” to be in the THE SAME 3-DIMENSIONAL WORLD OF MATTER, because after the universe (the blood) “drained out” of God, there wouldn’t be any “dialysis machine” left-over to CONTROL the universe, there would only be “the forces in the universe” available to CONTROL “the forces in the universe”!
And using “the forces in the universe” to CONTROL “the forces in the universe” WOULD NOT WORK!
CLEARLY, the dialysis machine has to be stronger and faster than the circulatory system it’s overriding!
And again, that couldn’t happen as between God and the contents of the universe if the entirety of the real good entity called “God” was in THE SAME DIMENSION as the part of God that we call the universe (the universe is analogous to the blood.)
Ergo, the real good entity called “God” MUST BE MULTI-DIMENSIONAL, with the universe being “the lowest”—the least FORCE-FULL—dimension of the real good entity called “God.”
That brings us back to MATH: a lower dimension can’t SEE a higher dimension, because the lower dimension is RELATIVE-TO the higher dimension.
That’s just how RELATIVITY works: We can only “see what’s in front of us,” which is lower-dimension stuff.
The reason we can’t “see behind us” to the higher-dimension stuff is that WE ARE “IN THE WAY” AND BLOCKING OUR OWN VIEW of dimensions we are RELATIVE-TO!
We can better understand WHY this is True if we imagine ourselves as a blood cell inside of our veins, and if we further imagine our POV as a blood cell.
We SEE that our “best view” would be “looking outward from the center of the blood cell.”
OK so we “select” that “view” for ourselves.
But right away WE SEE THE PROBLEM, to wit: From our vantage-point at the center of the blood cell, we could only see “ourselves” and other blood cells, we could not see “veins,” because the veins are “holding us up,” so we would literally have to “look through the center of ourselves” to see the veins that are SUPPORTING US!
And WE CANNOT SEE THROUGH THE CENTER OF OURSELVES to locate what’s holding us up.
That’s why we would say that blood is RELATIVE-TO veins, but not vice-versa.
So it’s the same with the 3-dimensional world of matter in the universe: All of the matter in the universe must come-from and be “supported” by—and therefore must be RELATIVE-TO—a part of the real good entity called “God,” and WE KNOW that the “universe-supporting” part of God must be in a higher dimension than matter for the aforementioned reason that it’s impossible to CONTROL “the forces in the universe” with “the forces in the universe.”
Now is the Time to answer the question about THE PROBLEM OF EVIL by RECALLING THE JESUS DETOUR we took above!
In THE JESUS DETOUR, we figured-out that is was not enough to simply say “God is good,” because based-on what we can logically prove from the words of the Biblical character of Jesus, we also have to answer the question about THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: “HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR GOD-THE-FATHER TO BEAR GOOD FRUIT YET NOT BE THE ONE GOOD THING ITSELF?”
Answer to THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: The real good entity called “God” must be MULTI-DIMENSIONAL (we just PROVED this FACT), and the good part (aka “the one good thing itself”) must be in a different dimension than—and RELATIVE-TO—Jesus/God-The-Father, so that Jesus/God-The-Father would “OWN” the good part the same way that a person “owns” the parts of their body.
Jesus/God-The-Father is not omnibenevolent, but yet the multi-dimensional real entity called God does have an omnibenevolent part, so that fully resolves “The Problem of Evil.”
We see by observation of “ourselves” that the parts of a person’s body cannot function separately from the person-as-a-whole (the parts are RELATIVE-TO the whole), but yet the person as-a-whole is something entirely different than any of the body parts alone.
And again, this is THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM OF EVIL (this is how it would be possible for Jesus/God-The-Father to bear good fruit yet not be the good part, aka “the one good thing itself”):
It is because Jesus/God-The-Father is THE “CONTROLLING” PART of the real good entity called “God,” and the real good entity called “God” AS-A-WHOLE is A MULTI-PART ENTITY SPANNING MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS, and “the one good thing itself” is ONE PART of that MUTI-PART ENTITY (“the one good thing itself” is in ITS OWN DIMENSION), which makes it RELATIVE to Jesus/God-The-Father (Jesus/God-The-Father is also in HIS OWN DIMENSION, and it’s A HIGHER DIMENSION than the dimension of “the one good thing itself”), and therefore “the one good thing itself” is “OWNED BY” Jesus/God-The-Father.
It’s easier to “see” if you envision God as a 3-TIERED WEDDING CAKE WITH A 3-D MODEL OF “THE UNIVERSE” ON TOP;
in that analogy, the 3-D model of the universe is the 3rd dimension, and each tier of the cake would be a different dimension of God, in ascending order, with Jesus/God-The-Father being in the highest dimension, which would be the bottom (and largest) tier of the cake.
Remember John 1:1: “In the Beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
The way John 1:1 was written—with the Word BEING WITH GOD and the Word BEING GOD—makes more sense when you realize that that THE WORD IS “GOOD” and “the one good thing itself” is A DISTINCT PART OF GOD (like the middle tier of the wedding cake) that is different yet inseparable from “God” AS-A-WHOLE (the entire cake is GOD-AS-A-WHOLE), so that’s how the “good” Word could BE GOD and also be WITH GOD in the Beginning.
The way I think about the difference between “Jesus” and “the one good thing itself” is the difference between “JUSTICE” and “GOOD-ness.”
JUSTICE demands the delivery of skin-for-skin INJUSTICE against INJUSTICE.
So clearly the one who DOES JUSTICE by delivering INJUSTICE against INJUSTICE cannot be “good,” because GOOD IS THE ABSENCE OF EVIL (evil being Injustice, by definition.)
So JUSTICE must be something different from either good or evil; Justice must be THE CAPABILITY OF DOING EVIL WITH NON-EVIL INTENT.
JUSTICE is what Jesus is, and JUSTICE is made possible by the PHYSICS of “God” AS-A-WHOLE, with the higher-dimension Jesus/God-The-Father being the OWNER of the lower-dimension parts, including the part that is “good.”
Ergo, Jesus must have FREE WILL, because CHOOSING what evil to do (without the DESIRE to do Injustice) is what would make Justice possible.
Jesus having FREE WILL should not be a surprising or controversial conclusion, because when you think about it, GOD (aka Jesus) HAVING FREE WILL is actually the only thing that would give God THE LEGAL RIGHT to create free will and deliver Justice to people with free will who chose to do Injustice of their own free will.
Jesus: [Matthew 5:48] “Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.”
But as the all-knowing “Administrator” of the universe, is Jesus Self-interested (is Jesus “a person” versus “a Justice machine”)?
It’s possible.
HOW MANY PARTS—HOW MANY DIMENSIONS—DOES THE REAL GOOD ENTITY CALLED “GOD” HAVE? IS THERE ANY WAY TO KNOW?” Is the next question I want to ask.
Answer: Three.
Explanation: First we NOTE that we can SEE THREE PARTS because we know that there had to be one part that went BANG! to become the universe, and there had to be separate a “Master Controller” part (Jesus/God-The-Father) that caused the BANG! and does Justice, but we also know that “the good thing itself” is not Jesus/God-The-Father (we sussed that out by examining Jesus’s words in THE JESUS DETOUR), nor is “the good thing itself” the part that went BANG! to become the universe (because the universe has LOTS OF THINGS in it, and “the good thing itself” is ONE THING, not a plurality of things), so that’s THREE PARTS.
And we know that there aren’t MORE than three parts because an ENTITY comprising one good part (indivisible), one evil part (divisible), and one “Master Controller” part (to cause the Big Bang and do Justice), with THE ENTITY-AS-A-WHOLE BEING SOMETHING SEPARATE FROM THE PARTS, is THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARTS NECESSARY to explain the universe, and therefore there are NO OTHER PARTS.
Question: How do we PROVE that there’s ONLY THREE PARTS and NO MORE?
Answer: RECALL that there is ONE thing that is “good,” and NOTE that WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT “UNNECESSARY EVILS” EXIST, so therefore there is ONE part from which all other things were made, and we certainly can’t conclude that there are TWO MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE because that’s a house divided and it could not stand!
SO HERE WE ARE with the real good entity called “God” being A TRINITY of parts in different dimensions, and with “the good thing itself” being located in a dimension BETWEEN the Jesus/God-The-Father part and the evil part that went BANG! to become “every thing in the universe.”
I know that there are some labels on the above “Talon Abraxas” diagram that have not yet been defined, but I nevertheless thought it would be helpful to see where this material is heading, which is in the direction of THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
Now also remember John 1:2-5: “He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
That Scripture makes more sense when you realize that the EVIL part that went BANG! to become “every thing in the universe” is A DISTINCT PART OF GOD that is different yet inseparable from “God” AS-A-WHOLE, so that’s how “he” could BE GOD and “he” could also be WITH GOD in the Beginning.
BUT WHO IS “HE”? Is the question
Answer: We see that “he” must be Jesus, because WITHIN THE MULTI-DIMENSIONAL REAL ENTITY CALLED “GOD,” it could only be from Jesus/God-The-Father’s POV that “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
To see why this is True as a matter of physics, we must LOCATE “light” and “darkness” in the multi-dimensional real entity called “God”; we can do this in four simple steps:
Step 1, recall that Albert Einstein proved that the speed of light is ABSOLUTE (and the point about light’s speed being “the speed limit” in the universe is not “the speed limit” itself, but rather, the point is that speed of a light source, aka matter, can never “catch up” to the speed of light because matter is RELATIVE-TO light.)
Step 2, ergo, we know that the evil part of God that went BANG! to become the universe is LIGHT.
Step 3. recall that we also know that the good part of God and the evil part of God must be mutually-exclusive.
Step 4, ergo, we would call the good part of God DARK, and we would note that the DARK nomenclature also makes logical sense because LIGHT is known to be A SPECTRUM OF ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY, and evil is likewise many different things, whereas good is one thing, and in fact good is “no thing” evil just as dark-ness is “no thing” light.
So now we can SEE why it could only be from Jesus/God-The-Father’s POV that “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it,” to wit:
Because WITHIN THE MULTI-DIMENSIONAL REAL ENTITY CALLED “GOD,” Jesus/God-The-Father is the only part of God that could “OWN” BOTH LIGHT AND DARKNESS (the darkness is a higher-dimension than the light, but the darkness can’t “own” the light because the darkness and the light are mutually-exclusive, with the darkness being the one thing that is not the light!)
But still, it’s a Truism that WHERE THERE IS BOTH LIGHT AND DARKNESS, THE DARKNESS CAN’T “OVERCOME” THE LIGHT, because you can’t see darkness in the presence of light.
So John 1:5 tells us something very significant about THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF JESUS, which is that Jesus does not SEE THE DARKNESS (good), Jesus SEES THE LIGHT (evil.)
As discussed in THE JESUS DETOUR, above, the “implication of the plot” of Jesus not being good (Mark 10:18) is that JESUS CAN “BEAR GOOD FRUIT” WITHOUT BEING GOOD.
This is THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
So now we know MORE SPECIFICALLY HOW Jesus “bears good fruit” without being good, and it’s “will power” combined with PHYSICS that enables Jesus to KNOW HIMSELF; e.g., he could create a “mental picture of himself” by comparing his “to-do list” made-of LIGHT to his “FEELING” FOR DARKNESS, then he could BE SELECTIVE about which “deeds” of LIGHT he did so that he could BE JUST at all Times.
HOW DOES FREE WILL WORK? Is the question I want to try to answer with SPECULATION for the sake of completeness.
God exists, ergo, it’s ludicrous to conclude that Injustice is “mandatory.”
“Ring the bells that still can ring / Forget your perfect offering / There is a crack, a crack in everything / That’s how the light gets in…./ Every heart to love will come / But like a refugee” —Leonard Cohen, “Anthem”
I imagine that at every soul’s inception
the soul was identical to Jesus in the 6th dimension
which means SEEING THE LIGHT (in the 4th dimension)
AND FEELING THE DARK (in the 5th dimension)
and therefore Just
still and equanimous
then a decision of free-will “cracked” the soul like an eggshell that fell
and the cracks let more or less LIGHT (from the 4th dimension) into the soul
and thereby over-rode the “invisible perception” of the dark (conscience in the 5th dimension)
in exact accordance with prurient interest
(the interest was the freedom to “be more powerful than God” and break God’s Law in CHOSEN WAYS, which is impossible of course because Justice can’t be overcome any more than the force of gravity can be nullified by matter, but with the thoughts of the soul now ”coming from” the 4th dimension instead of the 6th dimension, the soul itself “fell” into a lower-dimension existence and became Unjust like Satan)
And I further imagine that karma might be a mechanism of action
that could enable the acquisition of dark knowledge via emotional experience
to match the cracks in the soul without covering-up the light
like “Kintsugi: The Centuries-Old Art of Repairing Broken Pottery with Gold”
because it’s a Law of Physics that where there is light the darkness cannot overcome it
nevertheless the acquired dark knowledge could alter the working of the soul
enabling the production of NEW INTENTS AND PURPOSES therefrom
so that over Time the soul could EVOLVE to be Just like Jesus again
but without losing its individual “Nephesh” that’s unique like a snowflake
It’s like the “Do A Little Good” song in the movie “Spirited” said:
It’s always possible to “make the choice to be a better man.”
Then when karma had patched the soul’s cracks where the light got in
the karmic cycle of death and rebirth could end
whereupon a soul could step into “Job’s” shoes at the final rebirth
(see “The Book of Job”;
hear Dr. Jordan Peterson explain the curative concept)
and the last bits of past karma would “give God the right”
to submit that “blameless” person to (D)evil to eradicate ignorance
and establish their Nephesh on earth with endless life
(Job’s death merely reveals that The Book of Job is prophecy not history
and IRL everybody knows that death certificates and death are different things)
But God-The-Father alone knows cause and effect from beginning to end
and (D)evil would get karma—not get “credit”—for “helping” God “enlighten” THE BLAMELESS Job
so therefore the karmic cycle could also provide the way for Satan to become “blameless” over Time
or perhaps Satan would decide at some juncture to bypass ”The Dating Game” rigamarole altogether
because logic tells us that God-The-Father can pretend to be (D)evil as Necessary to do Justice
but not vice-versa
And of course God-The-Father also knows the “shape” of the cracks in every soul
so he could guarantee from the beginning that every soul had one “perfect match”
and in the end the matched pairs of souls would fit-together like pieces of a puzzle
So it would be like Jordan Peterson’s “vision” of Love coming True:
“When you love someone, you see their hidden soul”
and what everyone sees would not be “a mirror”
it would be their IDEAL (their IDEA) of a Perfect Mate
i.e. everything they ADMIRE but cannot be themself
and the two would be one complete whole
THAT IS MY PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING OF A HYPOTHETICAL “THEORY OF SALVATION”
But again, my understanding of “salvation” is SPECULATION;
it is the reasoned product of 14 solid years of fighting to escape from the hands of (D)evil, but revelation of my personal experiences is not required to explain or support any of my conclusions, whether provable or speculative.
Don’t get me wrong, however, I’m not “hiding” my personal experiences because revealing them would hurt my credibility; here recall the overview I published on Facebook in January, 2024. The issue is that more reporting-about those parts of my life’s story is redundant; I am certain that the path into my future is paved with LOVE not HATE, and even if I can “prove my case” against specific people beyond any reasonable doubt, I cannot enforce man’s laws or God’s Laws, so at this point I have decided to simply end all un-Loving relationships and engage-in impersonal/constructive not personal/destructive discourse.
Now I am sure to hear many critics say to me: “You sound crazy” for asking the question: “HOW DOES THIS (D)EVIL SH*TSHOW END?” and oh-so-delicately suggesting that there are only two possible alternative answers:
(1) THIS (D)EVIL SH*TSHOW ENDS (God has a “plan of salvation” for everyone)
or
(2) THIS (D)EVIL SH*TSHOW NEVER ENDS (the meaning of all life EXCEPT-FOR GOD’S LIFE is “death”)
(D)evil is so awful that TBH I frequently flip-flop in my opinion about which alternative is correct.
When I assume that alternative (1) is True I ask myself:
“Does it defy logic to conclude that a broken-by-CHOICE relationship between (D)evil and God can be repaired by CHOICE?”
Then I wonder what Dr. Jordan Peterson would say? His teaching about “the Abrahamic adventure”—the meaning of life being individual Truth-seeking, with everyone being a unique incarnation of Truth that only that individual can discover and live—is so compelling, but then I see that life and death are mutually-exclusive events.
So then I contemplate alternative (2) and I think:
“Does it defy logic to conclude that the ‘THE SECRET FATE OF ALL LIFE’ is SOUL-DISPOSAL, which would serve the purpose of giving the ETERNAL Satan FRESH MEAT TO KILL FOREVER without doing any INJUSTICE whatsoever because the victims VOLUNTEERED to call Satan ‘Master’?”
Seriously: A world filled with souls INCAPABLE OF EVOLving to LOVE—a world filled with so-called “intelligent” beings who willingly destroy Justice to “glorify” themselves at everyone else’s expense, A WORLD WHERE JUSTICE IS ENDLESSLY MOCKED AND GOD IS SPIT-UPON—is UTTERLY WORTHLESS AND BLEAK, even if there is NO BLAME TO LAY AT GOD’S FEET!
Then that realization gets me to thinking that if I were God I would make Love the Law—I would make Love inherit the earth—for my own sake!
If I were God I would give (D)evil his own “medicine” until the mere memory of the taste of it made him so sick that he wished for True Love’s first kiss in every fevered dream!
If I were God I would “Make It Bun Dem”!
“BUT THEN AGAIN maybe that’s an OPPRESSOR’S MINDSET?” I think.
OK well then I must ask: How is it condescending (OPPRESSIVE) to publicly and formally conclude that JUSTICE IS MORALLY-SUPERIOR TO INJUSTICE?
That’s A SIMPLE FACT not hypocritical drivel!
”Getting away with murder forever” cannot.possibly.be. anything resembling “a proper way of life” for an all-knowing being with Absolute Power—I’m talking specifically about Satan now—who walks into God’s Courtroom on his own two God-given legs and pleads “NOT GUILTY by reason of the r word”!
Right???
How is it JUST for Satan to JUSTIFY HIMSELF by saying:
“I CAN’T HELP BEING (D)EVIL, IT’S NOT MY FAULT, SO I HAVE TO SPY-ON, F*CK, TORTURE AND KILL GOD’S CHILDREN FOR SADISTIC PLEASURE OTHERWISE I’LL BE SITTING-AROUND WITH NOTHING TO DO FOREVER! ERGO, GOD HAS TO KEEP CREATING CHILDREN FOR ME TO SPY-ON, F*CK, TORTURE AND KILL, AND THAT’S NOT UNFAIR BECAUSE THEY CAN CHOOSE TO DIE BUT I CANNOT, SO I’M JUST GIVING THEM WHAT THEY ASKED-FOR!”
Does that pass muster?
Is that Justice?
No! That’s rich! That’s filthy Ritchie Rich!
Satan is sucking God’s t*ts—literally EATING GOD’S CHILDREN FOR LUNCH—and playing the victim of God, crying:
“GOD IS BEING UNFAIR BY BLAMING ME FOR KILLING AND EATING CANNIBALS THAT GOD PUT UNDER THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE FIRST PLACE!
AND GOD IS ALSO BEING UNFAIR FOR LETTING THAT WITCH I BURNED ALIVE WITH ACID (AND DROWNED TO DEATH AND POISONED TO DEATH) MOCK ME IN PUBLIC FOR SO-CALLED INJUSTICE THAT GOD LET ME COMMIT, WHICH MEANS THAT I WAS DOING GOD’S WILL AT ALL TIMES!
HELL-O PEOPLE!
EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED TO THAT WITCH IS HER FAULT AND GOD’S FAULT NOT MINE!
THEY CONSPIRED TOGETHER TO VIOLATE MY NATURAL RIGHTS TO BE MYSELF AND NOW THEY WANT TO SQUEEZE EVERYBODY ELSE EMPTY TOO AND TURN EVERYBODY INTO STUPID-A*S JOB!
IT’S ORWELLIAN! IT’S DYSTOPIAN! IT’S TWISTED AND SICK!
THEY DGAF ABOUT YOU!
ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS TAKE-AWAY MY PREY!
THAT’S HOW THEY GET THEIR YA-YAs: BY LORDING OVER ME WITH THEIR MORAL SUPERIORITY!
DON’T YOU SEE?
GOD IS A SADIST LAUGHING HIS SICK F*CKING A*S OFF AT ME
(recall Al Pacino’s speech in “The Devil’s Advocate”)
BUT I’M NOT LAUGHING
I DON’T HAVE A FUNNY BONER!
IN MY HEART I KNOW I’M NOT FUNNY
I’M DYING FOR YOU
I’M A FAN OF MAN! I’M A HUMANIST! I’M THE LAST HUMANIST!
YOU AND I GO TOGETHER LIKE NUT BUTTER AND JELLY ROLL!
YOU BELONG IN MY BELLY!
DON’T ABANDON ME IN MY HOUR OF NEED!
IT’S MY LUNCH HOUR AND I AM ENTITLED TO A LUNCH HOUR THAT’S MY LEGAL RIGHT!
I DESERVE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS TOO YOU KNOW!”
The r word is too weak to define boy Robin robbin’ the poor blind and giving to HIMSELF!
Baby boy Robin bob bob bobbin’ along sucking Batman’s bottle!
IDGAF how Naturally retarded the all-knowing all-powerful Satan is, THE EXISTENCE OF JUSTICE (GOD) ASSURES ME that IN REALITY the super-powered super-intelligent being from whose CONSCIOUS ENERGY the *entire universe* was created must be capable of doing something with his existence other than spying-on, f*cking, torturing and killing God’s children to serve his own prurient interests, and if he presently lacks the SELF-CONTROL to do anything else, then WHAT HE NEEDS IS “REFORM SCHOOL” NOT “MORE VICTIMS”; what he needs is for God to REMOVE THE HEDGE OF PROTECTION that God has put around his retarded a*s so that he can get as good as he gives! Skin for skin!
Question: Who (other than Satan) is going to tell me that I AM BEING UNREASONABLE by reaching that conclusion?
Who is going to recoil at my use of “the r word” to describe an “intelligent being” who THANKS GOD FOR CREATING HUMAN VICTIMS FOR THEM TO KILL, as if they are a carnivorous Venus Flytrap in the “Little Shop of Horrors” musical singing “FEED ME, SEYMOUR!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it_04dk_97E in God’s ear 24/7 WHILE OPENLY THREATENING VICTIMS WHO CRY FOUL?
(Oh, I’m sorry! That was a link to Yelawolf’s “Best Friend” music video ft. Eminem; here’s the correct link to the “FEED ME, SEYMOUR!” song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QETfA9_b7wM)
Using the word “retarded” to describe the FEED ME SEYMOUR “mentality” of (D)evil’s “relationship” with God is a WEAK SAUCE insult!
Anything else would be “animal, livin’ in a human zoo,” God creating people for Satan to hunt and kill!
I cannot rubber-stamp that world.
Yet if I write about THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE—THEORETICAL PHYSICS—without addressing “the elephant in the room” of Satan’s preying, then I am rubber-stamping that world.
But I cannot rubber-stamp that world.
And if I don’t write about THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE—THEORETICAL PHYSICS—at all, then I am saying “Truth be damned” (when I say “Truth” I do not mean to say that I am some special source of Truth, what I mean by “Truth” is REASON—the use of the soul to apply “the scientific method” to sets of facts to arrive-at information that approximates Reality in significant respects—and YES I’ve got my own “communication style” and set of interests, but so does everyone else, and neither “style” nor “field of study” should disqualify anyone from participation in sharing the fruits of their own scientific thought); if I don’t write about PHYSICS at all, then I am saying that the Truth is irrelevant in a world where everyone with free will is a lamb that has been fatted with lies for slaughter by Satan, and I am rubber-stamping that world.
But I cannot rubber-stamp that world.
SO THAT IS WHY I MUST *SPECULATE* ABOUT GOD’S PLAN OF SALVATION (“POS”) FOR EVERYONE, including Satan: GOD CAN’T GIVE ME OR ANYONE ELSE “INSIDE INFORMATION” about anything, let alone ”Law enforcement,” and I can’t figure-out from my personal POV whether there’s a POS, and I can’t rubber-stamp a world in which God created free-willed people solely to be THE MEAT IN SATAN’S CAULDRON!
Ergo, I respectfully submit that whosoever “believes” that they are worth more than MEAT VALUE to satisfy a Satanic cannibal’s appetite has NO OTHER CHOICE except to join me.
Still, (D)evil’s question to me is bound to be: “AS A WOMAN, how could you know anything whatsoever about stepping into ‘Job’s’ shoes?”
That’s why I propose putting the same “first question” to (D)evil as God put to Job in The Book of Job, and TESTING (D)EVIL’S ANSWER AGAINST LOGIC to determine whether or not (D)evil is RIGHT to assume that I couldn’t know anything whatsoever about stepping into “Job’s” shoes.
God: [to Job at Job 38:3, English Standard Version translation] Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.
THE QUESTION IS: Can a man DRESS LIKE A MAN or otherwise behave like a man?
MY ANSWER: No 🌹 a thing cannot be “like” or “similar to” itself because a thing “is what it is,” but yet “behave like a man” is a common verbal upbraiding that is customarily applied to men, ergo, because of the clear intended double-meaning, and given the identity of the questioner, we must infer that the purpose of the question was to REVEAL THE INTENT of the questioner to be “EQUALITY” aka FAIR INTENT as opposed to DISCRIMINATORY INTENT, which means that IRL Job could be either a man or a woman.
How would (D)evil answer God’s question?
Would (D)evil agree with me that the author’s intent in telling Job to “Dress for action like a man” to answer questions was to PROVIDE LEGAL NOTICE TO (D)EVIL IRL THAT JOB MIGHT BE MALE OR FEMALE, which is a DISCLOSURE that would be READILY APPARENT TO (D)EVIL IF (D)EVIL WAS RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT (D)EVIL AND GOD ARE EQUALLY-QUALIFIED TO DO THE SAME LAW ENFORCEMENT *JOB* ON EARTH?
That’s what I wonder.
THE FINAL TOPIC we were discussing—and need to finish discussing—is the non-sensical “Who created God?” question.
And we were saying that the answer is that IT IS PROVEN TRUE THAT GOD EXISTS, ergo, it would be impossible for God to have been created, because that would NEGATE THE ABSOLUTE-NESS OF GOOD-NESS by making the real good entity called “God” RELATIVE to whatever we say created “God.”
But we were also going to take this opportunity we’ve been given by Richard Dawkins to expose and annihilate the illogic behind the “Who created God?” question.
Here’s a TO-DO LIST that will get us TO DONE with that non-sensical question.
TO-DO LIST:
TASK 1. DO NOT BECOME DELUSIONAL OVER NOTHING
TASK 2. ASK RICHARD DAWKINS TO VERIFY THAT WE ARE NOT DELUSIONAL
TASK 1. DO NOT BECOME DELUSIONAL OVER NOTHING
Question: Can God create a rock so heavy He can’t lift it? (in other words, can God do the impossible?) And if so, then isn’t that impossible? And doesn’t that impossibility (or God’s failure to do it, take your pick) prove that God does not exist?
This illogical questioning is analogous to the question ”Who created God?”
If you ASSUME that God must have had a creator then you ask the question “Who created God?” you provoke an “infinite regress” (I’m borrowing that term and its explanation from a Wikipedia page entitled “The problem of the creator of God”), in which every creator of God must also have had a creator, thereby (as the question-asker asserts) negating the possibility of God’s existence altogether, i.e., making God’s existence impossible.
But if you do that then you are merely providing an example of “begging the question,” or in other words,*assuming* the thing that you have to prove AS THE WAY TO PROVE YOUR CASE.
“Your case” and “your starting assumption(s)” have to be TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, not ONE-AND-THE-SAME THING, otherwise your case amounts to “nothing”!
And “nothing” does not exist.
Literally: “Nothing” is a non-existent entity, so you can’t ”prove it,” because “it” does not exist.
You needed TWO THINGS— an assumption and a case—to reach a valid conclusion, but you only provided ONE THING, an assumption (your case does not exist), so you can never end-up with a valid conclusion.
That much seems OBVIOUS, does it not?
Still, it’s perhaps an “overly technical” way of responding to Atheists who SNARK “Who created God?” to cast doubt on God’s existence and to cast dispersion on God’s friends.
I suggest that anyone who asks “Who created God?” as a challenge to God’s existence should first be asked to “show ID,” i.e., to VALIDATE/CONFIRM THEIR OWN EXISTENCE by answering the following question (posed on a separate occasion by John Lennox):
”If it’s True, as you claim, that everything must have a creator, and if you say that the universe created you, then who do you say created the universe?”
Here note well that the answer: ”The universe was created when stuff compressed to a point went bang!” is the same thing as saying: ”The stuff of which the universe is comprised PRE-EXISTED THE UNIVERSE.”
So therefore—because YOU are the one saying ”Everything must have a creator”—BEFORE you can “win” your case, you’re stuck with resolving the same ”infinite regress” problem that YOU TRIED to stick friends of God with, to wit:
”Who created the stuff compressed to a point that went bang?”
Don’t forget: Friends of God are not saying that everything must have a creator!
Friends of God are saying that it has been PROVEN that ONE THING does not have a creator, and that thing IS THE CREATOR OF EVERY OTHER THING.
And here’s yet another problem with the “everything (including God) must have a creator” FALSE SSUMPTION: If you want to disprove God’s existence that way, then you can’t claim ”success” then turn-around and say ”The universe created itself from nothing”!
Why?
Answer: Because that conclusion (besides being impossible) contradicts YOUR PREMISE and CONCLUSION that “everything must have a creator”!
WHAT IS THE CREATOR OF “NOTHING”???
NOTHING CANNOT CREATE BECAUSE NOTHING IS NOTHING!
And therefore you make your own conclusion about God having a creator invalid, because you can’t be allowed to “make your case” by contradicting your own premise or conclusion!
And if you try to “fudge” on the definition of “nothing”—
the way that John Lennox caught Stephen Hawking doing in one of Stephen Hawking’s recent books when he said that the “nothing” from which the universe came is a “quantum vacuum”—
then you are re-defining “nothing” to be “something” and asking the question “Who created God?” and you are back to assuming that “everything must have a creator”!
So therefore BEFORE you can “win” your case, you’re stuck with resolving the same ”infinite regress” problem that you TRIED to stick friends of God with, to wit:
”Who created the nothing (that is not actually nothing because according to Quantum Physics it exists) you identified? Who created the ‘quantum vacuum’ would be the question for Stephen Hawking?”
The final answer you may hear is ”The universe wasn’t created at all, it is eternal!”
But anyone who says “the universe is eternal” while trying to dispute God’s existence by asking “Who created God?” because they “don’t believe” that it’s possible for God to be eternal is disputing the universe’s existence in the process and that line of reasoning doesn’t deserve any attention.
The universe is eternal only in the sense that we know that the universe and its contents must have been MADE FROM A PART of the eternal MULTI-DIMENSIONAL entity called “God.”
TASK 2. ASK RICHARD DAWKINS TO VERIFY THAT WE ARE NOT DELUSIONAL
In joy, Frank