If we reduce this to mathematics:
Does 1+1 equal 2 because God created the rules of math, or does God proclaim that 1+1 = 2 because 1+1 = 2?
Is there a third option? That God IS the rules of math?

What is the basis for axioms. Philosophy and science, any knowledge endeavor, relies upon axioms. Where do axioms get their authority from? What are axioms? Physical, mental, or something else?

Axioms don't strike me as physical. Therefor I am inclined to think they rest upon some absolute "mind" sort of reality.

Are axioms true because God says so, or does God proclaim the axioms because they are true, or is God the apex axiom? — Yohan

Magnifique! A new angle to the problem.

Is God a mathematician? — Mario Livio

Is God an accountant?

Are there AI accountants?

Is God an accountant?
Are there AI accountants? — Agent Smith

Are you implying that God could be an AI?
You know, if God is, lets say, an imaginary friend. Aren't imaginary friends technically AI?

Are you implying that God could be an AI?
You know, if God is, lets say, an imaginary friend. Aren't imaginary friends technically AI? — Yohan

I'm trying to see if there's a pattern by phasing out a being from the equation. God $\to$ AI $\to$ the laws of nature. Automation.

I'm trying to see if there's a pattern by phasing out a being from the equation. God → →\to AI → →\to the laws of nature. Automation. — Agent Smith

So nature as AI?

So nature as AI? — Yohan

Self-organizing entities, I believe it's one of the items on AI engineer's wish list.

Choices.

1. God is necessary for ethics

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (I had no need for that hypothesis). — Pierre-Simon Laplace

God is unnecessary because God commands what is good (ethics is independent of God)

2. God is desirable for ethics

if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.. — Mikhail Bakunin

God is undesirable because good is what God commands (ethics is arbitrary and good is but a whim and fancy of God)

Siddhartha Gautama's Buddhism makes no mention of gods and if it does only so in not-so-endearing terms, demoting them to lesser beings still subject to the rules/laws/conditions of samsara which is to say even gods experience dukkha.

Pandeism (or pan-deism), a theological doctrine first delineated in the 18th century, combines aspects of pantheism with aspects of deism. It holds that a creator deity became the universe and ceased to exist as a separate entity (deism holding that God does not interfere with the universe after its creation). Pandeism is proposed to explain (as it relates to deism) why God would create a universe and then appear to abandon it, and (as it relates to pantheism) an origin and purpose of the universe. — Wikipedia

Was Buddha a pandeist?

Can you make me one with everything? — Karl

Karma as you can see is a fully-automated system that replaces God.

Probably you are interested in reading this: THE BASIC TEACHINGS OF BUDDHISM

Because there is no substance or duration in Buddhism, the Buddhist view of karma is different from that in Hinduism or Jainism. Karma is only causation, without the mediation of any substance (apûrva, causal body, etc.). Reincarnation thus consists in our being caused by something in the past, and our karma is simply the effect now of past actions.

In the history of Buddhist philosophy, these doctrines created some difficulties. If there is no self, then what is it that attains enlightenment or Nirvâṇa? It is not me, for I am already gone in an instant; and if it is not me, then why bother? Also, if there is no enduring self, then the rewards and punishments of karma are visited on different beings than those who merited them. Why do I, instead of someone else, deserve the karma of some past existence? The Buddha himself probably would have been irritated with the doctrines that created these difficulties, since he rejected theorizing (it did not "tend to edification"), and he would have expected no less than that such theories would lead to tangled and merely theoretical disputes.

Nirvana must then be the realization of anatta, that there is no self, but then there's metempyschosis. The best response I can muster is the madhyamaka (reject both nihilists & eternalists). Generalizing, all pragmata are anepikrita (undecidable) due to the fact that they're adiaphora (logically undifferentiated). If you go the whole nine yards, even that which I said is of doubtful veracity. Enter pragmatism. The rest, as they say, is history.

Exactly. It is very complex to get into Nirvana and Buddhism because it is a very deep content. Understand the history of India is pretty important too though.
I have learned in the past months that there are even different schools about Buddhism. So I imagine how complex is to have a clear vision inside Buddhism.

Exactly. It is very complex to get into Nirvana and Buddhism because it is a very deep content. Understand the history of India is pretty important too though.
I have learned in the past months that there are even different schools about Buddhism. So I imagine how complex is to have a clear vision inside Buddhism. — javi2541997

I concur and looks like nobody most of us don't know how deep the leporidaen hole goes. It must be obvious to you then that this is the heart of skepticism; in fact as per skepticism, every epistemological projects is a dead end (we can't even get to the hole let alone plumb its depths).