Are there more plausible dogmas for a "God" than those posited by major religions?

Interesting but difficult question to answer of. I think the only way to find out more plausible dogmas, we have to go back to archaic times. Ancient Egypt could be a good example because such civilization was polytheistic and they compared their “gods” or “deities” with nature or universe, for example: The Egyptian sun god Rê appears in various forms. Rê is a god in human form, with a blue skin, who sails across the sky in a boat. Myth allows for a multiplicity of explanations, where the explanations are not logically exclusive (can contradict each other) and are often humorous.
Another interesting example: The Egyptian king Akhenaton who introduced a monotheistic cult of one God, the sun god Aton and abolished the worship of all the other traditional Egyptian gods.

I see that with the pass of centuries, most of the empires decided to turn in monotheistic societies. Nonetheless, it is good to consider how Akhenaton consider the sun as the cult of one god rather than humanized characters. I guess Egyptian culture is the closer to always had more plausible god to understand universe and nature.

But all of the above is just my humble opinion.

good to consider how Akhenaton consider the sun as the cult of one god rather than humanized characters. I guess Egyptian culture is the closer to always had more plausible god to understand universe and nature. — javi2541997

I think we can apply this to many gods throughout time. There have been gods of nature, of water, of the sky, the sun, of fire, of love, of war, gods of beauty, gods of fortune, the list is really extensive.

I see them as products of our natural tendency as humans to humanise reality. To take components, laws, principles human conditions, and give them personhood.

The idea of monotheism for me is similar to the physics anticipation/reasoned expectation of a "theory of everything". One unanimous and overruling law that governs all of reality. And explains all phenomena and occurrences

Frustratingly, I don't believe science alone will ever discovery an universal principle that explains all of reality as science is but one discipline and one dogma in the sphere of human means to understand the universe

Frustratingly, I don't believe science alone will ever discovery an universal principle that explains all of reality as science is but one discipline and one dogma in the sphere of human means to understand the universe — Benj96

I understand your point, but why do you get frustrated? Don’t you think is better to always have debates and questions? The nature of universe looks endless and it is one of the most beautiful and sublime acts inside philosophy.

So what ought be the dogma of an" acceptable God?" One that everyone could get behind. — Benj96

"Everyone" can't "get behind" the fact that the Earth is round so any prospect less concrete – rorschach signifier – is a non-started for "everyone" to agree on.

Could we really indeed be made in the image of the universe?

star-stuff.... it's exactly as meaningful as you make it. Star stuff is just atoms. We glorious humans are made of it and so is our excrement once it leaves our glorious god-image bodies. WTF is an image of the universe and is that made of something more special?

So what ought be the dogma of an" acceptable God?" One that everyone could get behind. — Benj96

There can't be one. Gods worked as long as they were imaginable: just big enough to create land, water, moon, sun, animals and people, but still small enough to manifest, to die and get reborn, have sex and kids; to interact with people in some human-scaled ways. Once you push the god out beyond your own solar system, and then past your galaxy; once you give him omni-powers, he's just too remote to relate to. He becomes ineffable, unreachable, unthinkable -- and useless.

Or perhaps, there is already a dogma for such a God, — Benj96

Dogma is a very poor way to present a deity. He needs to be personal, plausible, adaptable and available.

and it is human flaw that continually prevents it from being fully and unanimously realised. — Benj96

Of course - original sin: It's all your fault. You brought evil into the world by learning that it exists. You prevented the cure for your cancer by failing to believe strongly enough.
Which is more blameworthy, the one who made it all, or the one who peeked behind the curtain?

No, there is no point in looking for a universal deity. Gods are supposed to be tribal, local, intimately connected to their people and the land. Any god bigger than that will juts make a colossal ass of itself.

Everyone" can't "get behind" the fact that the Earth is round — 180 Proof

That's a very good point. Haha

Every possible combination has been tried and none have unlocked the room where God resides ... peacefully.

Every possible combination has been tried and none have unlocked the room where God resides ... peacefully. — Agent Smith

It seems so. We've certainly looked at it from as many angles as is probably humanly possible for millenia. There is still no consensus and no matter how advanced our technology and understanding of the physical universe becomes, we cannot seem to shrug the concept of "God" from our collective minds. Even those that don't believe in a God still know what the idea of "God" means and can argue about it, use it in language, discuss it.

We are no closer to a "reason why" reality exists at all nor why consciousness exists at all, or even what the two are exactly.

Why is it that some people are so sure god doesn't exist. And why is it that some people are so sure god does exist.

Finally, I wonder if we created an experimental society, isolated from all human culture, perhaps on another planet. Raised to maturity with absolutely no information on the notion of God, just technology and science. Would some of them still stumble upon/manufacture a God theory?

Is it innate to us to consider such an entity when given no prior exposure to the concept? And if so, does that itself have any implications on the argument for or against such an entity?

I understand your point, but why do you get frustrated? Don’t you think is better to always have debates and questions? The nature of universe looks endless and it is one of the most beautiful and sublime acts inside philosophy. — javi2541997

Of course you're correct. It is a beautiful thing to have curiosity, to wonder "why?" always having more questions to ask.

Having all the answers may be temporarily euphoric, marvellous, self-fulfilling, but would soon loose its novelty, its charm.

One might soon conclude after proving something of that explanatory power, that there's no purpose left in life. That no stone is left unturned, that the playground has become boring, all the games have been played.

Ignorance is bliss and also equally detrimental. Omniscience I suspect is likely also bliss and equally detrimental.

I guess my frustration would come from the same source as it does for many, a constant curiosity/desire to know something better. To understand deeper. To demonstrate a higher level of knowledge and wisdom. And then recognising that I'm just as confused and unsure, as limited in resources and tools to discover as the next person.

But that is also part of the magic. As humans we love mystery and explanation both. Each has its emotional and logical allure to us as sentient beings.

Is it innate to us to consider such an entity when given no prior exposure to the concept? — Benj96

Yeah, we're congenital magical thinkers. Up to about a third of us are quite susceptible to the placebo / nocebo effect.

And if so, does that itself have any implications on the argument for or against such an entity?

I don't think so.

star-stuff.... it's exactly as meaningful as you make it. Star stuff is just atoms. We glorious humans are made of it and so is our excrement once it leaves our glorious god-image bodies. WTF is an image of the universe and is that made of something more special — Vera Mont

Haha that's a very apt way of putting it. What is an image of the universe indeed.

My guess would be the image of the universe would be the "truth" about the universe. The revealing of its nature, how it works, its rules, its laws, how all things relate to eachother. Something that physics, chemistry and biology are very good at elucidating.

As for us, I guess being made "in the image" of the universe, is the discovery of how we relate to it. The questions: who are we, why are we here, when did we arrive, when will we leave, how are we made and from what are we made, where are we from, where are we now, where will we be in the future?

Many of these questions have quite developed answers from medicine, from archaeology, from psychology and sociology etc. But much is left unanswered. And some other questions seem to completely elude us.

Our own nature is just about as unsure as the true nature of reality. And that is both beautiful/enigmatic, and annoying, shitty.

he's just too remote to relate to. He becomes ineffable, unreachable, unthinkable -- and useless. — Vera Mont

Very true. It seems that the more generalised we make an "answer", the harder we try to describe "thee answer", the ultimate one, the more incoherent or contradictory it becomes, the more vague, unimaginable, unknowable it is.

I suppose the thing/phenomenon we know the best (or at least we hope so) is ourselves. As we are the source of our "I". Ourselves is the closest and most constant thing in our experience, and the further we stretch out and expand our questioning and understanding, the further our mind wanders from its source, from the thing it knows best.

If civilization progresses in similar ways, aliens, no doubt, will also conceive of god(s). The point is we have different conceptions of god and that speaks volumes as to how we've been so faithful and yet remain unacknowledged for it.

Dogma is a very poor way to present a deity. He needs to be personal, plausible, adaptable and available. — Vera Mont

I agree in a sense. But everything we do has a dogma (a principle or guide to follow). Science has its own dogma. It is rigid and inflexible about exactly how a proof must come about. Religions too have their own dogmas. And perhaps even individual people have a dogma (their motto, ethos, personal mantra of life). Of course some of these are more flexible and subject to change with experience and knowledge so could be considered generally less dogmatic, whilst others are insistent on permanence, on rules, stubborn.

Some people are extremely stubborn and arrogant. Others are aloof, amenable to change, like the tides.

Which is more blameworthy, the one who made it all, or the one who peeked behind the curtain? — Vera Mont

Wow this is quite profound indeed. Its almost like "if one were to know God (if such a thing exists), one would arguably be closer to it, more becoming of it, and thus more responsible, more blameworthy. Just as you cannot blame an ignorant or innocent person (lack of knowledge) for their actions, nor a disabled person (lack of potency/power) as easily as blaming an aware/able person that actively chose to be neglectful despite knowing and being able to do better.

Any god bigger than that will juts make a colossal ass of itself. — Vera Mont

You're probably right. I suspect any such "universal" God would not wish to be found. They would certainly be seen by some as thee most criminal of all criminals. Then again, a universal God, by being all things supposedly, would be both those on the quest to know themself, and those who prefer not to.

Who is accountable for all greatness and all horrors if there is only one "who" to begin with. Who does such an entity answer to? Only themselves I guess. Their own source of guilt and shame, and their own source of pride and joy.

I do wonder, does the existence of multiple sentient beings with their own agency, take the burden off a universal God? Would such a phenomenon be an act of sharing the culpability/blame and merit alike?

Can perfection ever occur as an isolated instance within a larger system of imperfection? Can imperfection ever occur as an isolated instance within a larger system of perfection? In essence where is the original sin and its opposite, the original divinity? Are they the sources of hatred and love respectively? And of course they're both mutual opposites, referential, necessities for one another I guess. Who is who, what is what.

Yeah, we're congenital magical thinkers. Up to about a third of us are quite susceptible to the placebo / nocebo effect. — 180 Proof

Interesting association. Never thought of it that way before. I for one am glad for the existence of both sceptics and mystics. I love the idea of magic. But I also love the idea of rationale/reason. Each side offers its own unique aptitudes.

For example if my dying relative is at peace in the process of death because they have a mystic belief, some intuition, that death is not so final and meaningless as a sceptic approach would suggest. I would embrace that with them. I would not dare to rationally argue that away and leave them in doubt and fear in the moment they need the greatest comfort.

Elderly and ill alike often become more spiritual as they approach the end of their life. I think scepticism is important for technology and societal advancement, but I think belief is more important to the individual person. As when you are the only person facing the unknown, alone in dying, the only thing that matters is what you believe.

People pray in the most dire of times. Though later, if they survive, they often don't wish to admit that.

If civilization progresses in similar ways, aliens, no doubt, will also conceive of god(s). The point is we have different conceptions of god and that speaks volumes as to how we've been so faithful and yet remain unacknowledged for it — Agent Smith

Interesting. For me "faith" or "belief" comes from the self, it is observed at an individual level, its usually personal in character/a specific intimate relationship, internal, whilst "proof" is that which can be collectively observed, and points to general relationships between things.

I'm not sure the faithful always desire acknowledgment for that. Often it is something they hold solely within the privacy of their own mind. As they know that they could never reveal it in a factual manner to everyone else. It cannot be tested or proven. So why bother look for widespread acknowledgment.

What you latched onto was more of a personal matter. Anyway, I share your sentiments as regards as religious dogma being inadequate, but as I told you we've tried everything there is to try and we have diddlysquat.

what choice do we have in the end then in your opinion? When everything is done and dusted, and there is neither proof nor disproof of something.

How do we carry on from their? Do we simply just pick one side of the argument and go with it blindly? Do we forget about the whole thing and never think about it again? Or do we re-examine the subject in desperate hopes that we missed something, that there is an answer?

I don't see what other option we have outside of these three. Accept/reject, ignore, try again.

I usually light up a cigarette mon ami.

haha that's as good an action as any I guess. *shrug*

haha that's as good an action as any I guess. *shrug* — Benj96

:smile:

I guess my frustration would come from the same source as it does for many, a constant curiosity/desire to know something better. To understand deeper. To demonstrate a higher level of knowledge and wisdom. And then recognising that I'm just as confused and unsure, as limited in resources and tools to discover as the next person. — Benj96

You are right in the fact that is difficult to get satisfied in terms of culture. Art and philosophy are the deepest topics in human understanding. I am even aware that I will die without knowing or understanding everything. It is impossible to reach such level of wisdom because our lives are limited and we dont have enough time to discover it all. Nonetheless, at least, in our limted space and time we have to do our best to reach wisdom and avoid ignorance.
I guess that's should be one of the main purposes of each person. Does wisdom help to reach happinness? I think yes

Does wisdom help to reach happinness? I think yes — javi2541997

It is unwise to fall into the traps of depression.

I also agree that wisdom in general makes one more immune to negative moods/ depression, being manipulated, losing your autonomy to exploitation and just generally being reactionary to everyone's opinion of you, many of which will be judgemental, critical, cynical. Wisdom confers control over the self and ones experience, allowing for growth even trhough traumatic experiences.

Also wisdom is an ability to help/give council to others too which I imagine is also very fulfilling on its own right.

So yes. I agree.

I think it's worth noting that different people attain wisdom at different rates and also reach different levels of their greatest life wisdom, which is not neccesarily when they are oldest. Some people simply never wise up, others are outliers for their young age. "An old head on young shoulders".

I am not sure how questions about the supernatural can ever by part of Philosophy. Philosophy by default is our attempt to construct Wise claims about our world that could help us expand our understanding. I don't really see how supernatural concepts that can't be evaluated for their truth value can contribute anything to our Wisdom or our Epistemology.

I don't really see how supernatural concepts that can't be evaluated for their truth value can contribute anything to our Wisdom or our Epistemology. — Nickolasgaspar

Everything in philosophy is in continued contention: like for example what is "truth", how do we "know" something is true/what is knowledge.
What do we mean by supernatural? What's the definition of something supernatural verses natural. Are all things that occur in nature natural?
Is energy supernatural because it is invinsible/indestructible for example?

Philosophy is about thought, thinking, reasoning and defining, ideas and concepts.

That can be applied to literally anything; be it art, psychology, history, economics, maths, science and of course spirituality, religion and consciousness.

Philosophy has the largest scope of any discipline. The minute you restrict or exclude topics from philosophy you already presuppose too much and cut yourself off at the knees.

I am not sure how questions about the supernatural can ever by part of Philosophy — Nickolasgaspar

Of course they can be. We can explore whether they are indeed intangible, or supernatural, we can do comparative discussions. We can ask why people ask the question in the first place. We can define the elements of a question. Offer possible conclusions. Philosophy does not prohibit.

I do wonder, does the existence of multiple sentient beings with their own agency, take the burden off a universal God? Would such a phenomenon be an act of sharing the culpability/blame and merit alike? — Benj96

What burden? Who invented it? Whose concepts are blame and merit? Gods, if they existed, would not be answerable; would not even deign to contemplate such a question. "I Am That I Am. I Do As I Do." In this, gods are as innocent and sacrosanct as black holes and earthworms.
The right and wrong of things, perfection and ultimate unity, are imagined and defined by humans, for humans. They may try to impose it on their gods, ideologies and other devices, but it doesn't stick.

The revealing of its [the universe] nature, how it works, its rules, its laws, how all things relate to eachother. Something that physics, chemistry and biology are very good at elucidating. — Benj96

They were good enough at it to cure me of cancer, which prayers notoriously fail to do.

The questions: who are we, why are we here, when did we arrive, when will we leave, how are we made and from what are we made, where are we from, where are we now, where will we be in the future? — Benj96

Pre-civilized mythologies answer these questions much more satisfactorily

The Piaroa, who live on the south bank of the Orinoco and speak a language of the Sáliva-Piaroan family, believe that everything was created by the powers of imagination. In the beginning, they say, there was nothing at all. The first thing to appear was the sky, and then the air and the wind. With the wind, words of song were born. The words of song are the creative powers that produce thoughts and visions. Out of nothing they imagined and created Buoko, the first being, who developed in the words of song.

than post-civilized ones, which are more about power, obedience and hierarchy, and that is why civilizations wiped out all the indigenous cultures they could reach.

Inca myth of the creation of the world
The Andean god Viracocha decided to give rise to a world in darkness where giants lived.
The giants disobeyed Viracocha who decided to disappear his creation causing a torrential rain.
Then Viracocha created man in his likeness. In addition, he created the moon, the sun and the stars so that men could appreciate his creation through light.
Viracocha sent the world to Viracochan, his son who taught men to live in harmony, to cultivate the land, to harvest and to govern themselves with wisdom.
Some men disobeyed Viracochan and that’s why they turned them into stone. Then he went to a fertile valley he called Cusco. There I create a person called Alcaviza.
“After Alcaviza, the Incas orejones will arrive. My wish is that they be respected, “said Viraconchan at the time of creating Cusco.

But everything we do has a dogma (a principle or guide to follow). Science has its own dogma. It is rigid and inflexible about exactly how a proof must come about. — Benj96

Tenets, rules and principles are necessary. But once a science (or any discipline) becomes dogmatic, it stops evolving and soon gets left behind, like leeches (though actually they've made a comeback) and alchemy. Even more so, the story of humanity needs to keep flowing or it stagnates, ceases to serve its original purpose, becomes absurd as all orthodoxies do.

Great questions. First I have to agree with your statement: "Everything in philosophy is in continued contention". *that is also true in science.
Every statement is in contention but not all concepts or statements qualify as philosophical material.
i.e the question "what is true" can easily be part of a philosophical discussion, but the question "that is truth" that is more a matter of defining the meaning of the concept than philosophizing about it. (the standards and the criteria used by this evaluation term ). Words and concepts are the tools by which we can do philosophy.

What do we mean by supernatural? — Benj96

In science, what we understand as "supernatural" is a phenomenon that either ignores or breaks natural laws by displaying non regular characteristics or allows the emergence of high level features without being contingent to fundamental low level mechanisms.
i.e. the claim that mind properties can emerge in nature without being contingent to to biological system (brain) is a supernatural one.
or the claim of a object being able to fly in earth's atmosphere while ignoring aerodynamic rules and physics is also a supernatural claim.

What's the definition of something supernatural verses natural. Are all things that occur in nature natural? — Benj96

Natural phenomena are contingent to Natural processes and they don't go against rules of Nature.
Are all things in nature Natura?? To this day we have failed to verify a phenomenon able to display Empirical Irregularity while ignoring rules of Nature.
So we can not offer an absolute answer to that question. What we can do is to hold the default position(Null Hypothesis) and reject the claim of the Supernatural UNTIL it is verified to be true.

Is energy supernatural because it is invinsible/indestructible for example? — Benj96

No. Invisibility is an irrelevant property. Energy is an abstract concept that describes the ability of Natural phenomena have to produce work. Different types of energy are observable and quantifiable and we don't have to register their characteristics by processing the visible spectrum of light(visible).

Philosophy is about thought, thinking, reasoning and defining, ideas and concepts. — Benj96

-Actually all those things allow us to Philosophize. What most people forget is that Philosophy has a goal which is defined by the word itself (Philo-Sophia). Our love to gain wisdom is what drives us to Philosophize in the first place. In order to produce Wisdom we need to reflect our thoughts upon our current accepted knowledge. We can not accept a claim as "wise" without knowing its truth value. Wisdom and Knowledge go hand in hand (Science and Philosophy).
So in the case of the god concept, we have zero knowledge on the ontology of the concept to reflect upon, so we can never extend our understanding or arrive to a valid Philosophical conclusion.

That can be applied to literally anything; be it art, psychology, history, economics, maths, science and of course spirituality, religion and consciousness. — Benj96

-I can agree with that statement. By using the knowledge we get from science or any other empirical and methodical study we can philosophize on any subject....but that doesn't help us learn something about the truth value of a religious claim. Religious claims come without any verified epistemology so our starting point is arbitrary , product of our superstition at best. We don't have a solid epistemic platform to begin our philosophical quest.

Philosophy has the largest scope of any discipline. The minute you restrict or exclude topics from philosophy you already presuppose too much and cut yourself off at the knees. — Benj96

Yes it has...but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to introduce pseudo philosophy in the discipline. A topic excludes itself from Philosophy when it is unable to tick the three basic steps of a Philosophical inquire (defined by Aristotle).
1. Epistemology 2. Physika 3.Metaphysics.(aestetic, ethics, politics )
IF a topic starts straight from a Metaphysical point (supernatural entity) then we are dealing with a pseudo philosophical Topic. All Supernatural concepts are Pseudo Philosophy by definition.

Of course they can be. We can explore whether they are indeed intangible, or supernatural, we can do comparative discussions. We can ask why people ask the question in the first place. We can define the elements of a question. Offer possible conclusions. Philosophy does not prohibit. — Benj96

In order to explore their nature you will need to do Science , not Philosophy. If we have zero epistemology to compare, then the discussions can never be philosophical.
Anthropology and psychology explores the question ''why people ask the question in the first place." Understanding or not why people ask the question will tell us Nothing about the truth value of the God claim.

We can define the elements of a question. Offer possible conclusions. Philosophy does not prohibit. — Benj96

Philosophy has done that for many centuries. The failure to gain any epistemology on the subject is what fueled Natural Philosophy, Methodological Naturalism and Science.Without any epistemology in hand there is nothing there to say on the subject that could elevate it to a philosophical level.

What burden? Who invented it? Whose concepts are blame and merit? Gods, if they existed, would not be answerable; would not even deign to contemplate such a question. "I Am That I Am. I Do As I Do." In this, gods are as innocent and sacrosanct as black holes and earthworms. — Vera Mont

Fair. I suppose in coming from it by projecting human conscience onto a deity. There's not reason why a deity if they existed woukd ever think feel or be aware in the same way as humans are.

I guess I always figured anything conscious would feel both positive and negative emotions, both about themselves and about the world around them. But in the case of a universal god, there is no external reality/world or universe "around them" as they are it.

They were good enough at it to cure me of cancer, which prayers notoriously fail to do. — Vera Mont

That's great I'm very heartened to hear it. Some people (not me particularly I'm just spit balling different viewpoints here), would say that a benevolent god, or the benevolent side of an ambivalent one, works through those existants that propagate that - the scientists, organisations and corporations that make it possible to treat diseases etc. Some would pray for a treatment, receive it and then take that to conclude that their positive health outcome is the work of good people, good conditions/circumstances etc - a subset of the manifestation of the good in the universe.

What would you say to that having gone through the ordeal yourself? Is it total tripe or does it hold any credence?

than post-civilized ones, which are more about power, obedience and hierarchy, and that is why civilizations wiped out all the indigenous cultures they could reach. — Vera Mont

Yes I agree we certainly lost/or sacrificed some positive elements of society in favour of competition, self interest etc. The modern world can and sometimes does learn from the ancient eras.

. Even more so, the story of humanity needs to keep flowing or it stagnates, ceases to serve its original purpose, becomes absurd as all orthodoxies do. — Vera Mont

That's quite an interesting view. I'd like if you could elaborate more on it (if you have the time or interest of course). How does the story evolve, or perhaps more importantly how ought it evolve in your opinion?

interesting. I see where you're coming from. I just have difficulty with believing that science doesn't also begin with rather arbitrary (in the sense that they are largely presupposed without any solid evidence for such a supposition) concepts. Like time, energy etc.

Energy as something that cannot be created or destroyed is a huge assumption to make. As it allows not to establish where it originates from, why it occurs at all. And it being basically the fundamental constituent of all material as well as all interactions, is virtually indefinable. Something that is fundamentally everything cannot really be further defined/restricted in character/properties beyond this vague generalisation.

And yet we do manage to subdivide it and characterise specific types of energy, despite the fact that they can convert from one form to the next. But only because of its presupposed eternality and ability to create anything (sensations/objects/happenings) in existence.

For me, energy is as about as close to magic as science gets. It's both invisible and visible, can be felt and also not felt at all, can take any form whatsoever, we have no idea where it comes from initially or why, and yet we gloss over that so that we may use it as a basic principle of science.

When i search for meaning in a concept of God I'm not referring to some big bearded fellow floating in the clouds. Of course not. It's more nuanced than that. I'm simply suggesting that we don't yet have verification of whether consciousness is a fundamental force that began with the universe or why it is possible for it to emerge from substance (the hard problem).

Many people leave the door open to a god theory to explain such a profound dynamic as this. The fact that us, as parts of the universe, are a direct example of the universe being aware of itself.

I think if philosophy can question its own tenets: epistemology, physika and metaphysics as you pointed out - as in how to define them, what falls within each definition, why they exist as components, are there more components we haven't considered, where they come from, how they may overlap, I'm not so sure everything needs to satisfy all three to be considered worthy of philosophical endeavour.

If one is to consider the universe itself as a "God" and then figure out how to caracterise/understand or explain that, surely philosophy which is not external to the universe, must be applicable to the universe?

In the end it is still a love of knowledge. Is the particular subject of said knowledge so important?

Perhaps you're totally right and there is such cases as pseudo philosophy. Subjects that ought not be broached by the subject. But I have not yet encountered a major topic that hasn't be brought to the attention of this forum to seek insight, or just for general speculation.

Some people (not me particularly I'm just spit balling different viewpoints here), would say that a benevolent god, or the benevolent side of an ambivalent one, works through those existants that propagate that - the scientists, organisations and corporations that make it possible to treat diseases etc. — Benj96

That's a "nice" if not very convincing argument for a god who created suffering in the first place. Well, in fact, all organized religious arguments are circular, since they want it both ways: a big enough god to have created everything, but only takes credit for the good half, while shoving blame for the bad half onto its creatures.

Some would pray for a treatment, receive it and then take that to conclude that their positive health outcome is the work of good people, good conditions/circumstances etc - a subset of the manifestation of the good in the universe. — Benj96

That, plus the suffering of all the experimental animals, and the collateral damage of the toxic waste I'm responsible for. Selfish enough to accept the good; not quite hypocritical enough to ignore the bad. (At least I didn't hedge my bets by paying anyone to pray for me.)

[dogma-stagnation] That's quite an interesting view. I'd like if you could elaborate more on it (if you have the time or interest of course). How does the story evolve, or perhaps more importantly how ought it evolve in your opinion? — Benj96

I was thinking more of science and learned disciplines. But the story? I have imagined how it should go after the collapse. ATM, I can only see the imminent collapse. Really, though, history doesn't have any more of a moral sense than gods do. What we make of our story is entirely up to humans -- among whom, I am not influential.

in a concept of God I'm not referring to some bug bearded fellow floating in the clouds — Benj96

That is the most beautifully Kafkaesque typo I've seen all year. (Year's young yet, of course....)