100 Questions for God:

Contemplations and Ramblings of an Opinionated Truth Seeker

By Justin O’Pinion

Copyright 2011 Justin O’Pinion

To Mordana, Irate, and Set – you are my three favorite O’Pinions.

To Walter – thank you for your inspiring questions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

PART ONE: GETTING THE JOB – THE NATURE OF GOD

Question 1: How do you become God?

Question 2: Where is God?

Question 3: How much power is enough?

Question 4: Does God impact the physical world?

Question 5: Did God create the universe, Earth or your back yard?

Question 6: Does God really give a damn?

Question 7: Can God experience emotion?

Question 8: Can God experience pain?

Question 9: Is God lonely?

Question 10: Is God an egomaniac?

Question 11: Is God fallible?

Question 12: Can God influence outcomes?

Question 13: Can there be more than one God?

Question 14: Was God created?

Question 15: Can God evolve?

Question 16: Is God male or female?

Question 17: What sexual orientation would God be?

Question 18: Is God black, white or some other shade?

Question 19: What does God look like?

Question 20: Does God know everything?

Question 21: If God evolved is there any implication to this?

Question 22: Is God universal?

Question 23: Is God good or evil?

Question 24: How would God define right and wrong?

Question 25: Is God balanced by any other force in the universe?

Question 26: Is God a random firing of neurons?

Question 27: Is God in control?

Question 28: Can God see the future?

Question 29: What is God’s purpose?

Question 30: Who has the authority to talk on God’s behalf?

Question 31: What qualifies us to have a relationship with God?

PART TWO: GOD & HUMANITY – WHAT’S THE DEAL?

Question 32: Are Homo sapiens God’s chosen species?

Question 33: Were we created in God’s image?

Question 34: Was the universe created for mankind?

Question 35: Why doesn’t God appear to us?

Question 36: What’s the deal with this “free will” thing?

Question 37: Does God provide a level playing field?

Question 38: Whose God is right?

Question 39: Why should there be tolerance of all perspectives?

Question 40: Does science threaten God?

Question 41: Are fossils real?

Question 42: Is God a racist or nationalist?

Question 43: Is God a sexist?

Question 44: Does God want to be worshipped?

Question 45: Should God be communed with?

Question 46: Can prayers be answered?

Question 47: Are there miracles?

Question 48: How do God and morality interact?

Question 49: How do we get to heaven?

Question 50: Does God uphold the laws of the land?

Question 51: Is this book blasphemy?

Question 52: How would God feel about our use of creation?

Question 53: Is God in hiding?

PART THREE: WHAT DOES GOD VALUE?

Question 54: Does God value anything at all?

Question 55: Does God value life?

Question 56: Does God value honesty?

Question 57: Does God value love?

Question 58: Does God value evolution?

Question 59: Does God value blind faith?

Question 60: Does God value potential or performance?

Question 61: Does God value time?

Question 62: Does God value monuments to her greatness?

Question 63: Does God value wealth?

Question 64: Does God value contribution to universal knowledge?

Question 65: Does God value caring for others?

Question 66: Does God value humility?

Question 67: Does God value selfishness or selflessness?

Question 68: Does God value power?

Question 69: Does God value diversity?

Question 70: Does God value tolerance?

Question 71: Does God value persistence?

Question 72: Does God value admitting you’re wrong?

Question 73: Does God value justice?

Question 74: Does God value ritual and rules?

Question 75: Does God value breaking the rules?

Question 76: Does God value integrity?

Question 77: Does God value miscellaneous items?

PART FOUR: SO WHAT – WHERE’S THIS LEAD US?

Question 78: What’s the deal with sin?

Question 79: Is morality a moving target?

Question 80: What’s the deal with birth control?

Question 81: What’s the deal with abortion?

Question 82: Do fauna or flora have rights?

Question 83: What responsibility do we have for our environment?

Question 84: What responsibility do we have for and to our children?

Question 85: Is economic growth a goal in itself?

Question 86: How important is education?

Question 87: Will I get my rewards in heaven, my come-uppance in hell or something else?

Question 88: What’s this all mean for sex?

Question 89: Is marriage important?

Question 90: I’m a citizen of what?

Question 91: How does this “do unto others” thing play out?

Question 92: Is everyone else just an idiot?

Question 93: What is the true measure of a successful life?

Question 94: Is the end nigh?

Question 95: Should I be prepared to die for my beliefs?

Question 96: What if we’re not the smartest kids on the block?

Question 97: Any suggestions on rules to live by?

Question 98: Phrases to live by?

Question 99: Could the universe exist without God?

Question 100: Does God exist?

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR GOD

INTRODUCTION

The concept of God permeating our modern society is driven by thousands of years of history and indoctrination. Based on a quick straw poll, God is supposedly:

a) Male

b) A singular sensation (i.e. there’s no second in command)

c) Omnipresent

d) The creator of the universe

e) Straight

f) Unimpressed with people who fail to recognize his magnificence

g) Quite partial to being worshipped

It’s possible all of this is true. It’s possible some or all of it is not.

The goal of this book is not to denounce anyone’s perspective or suggest that I (or anyone) have all of the answers. However, it does aim to provide a semi-reasoned contemplation of what or who God might be, and any values resulting from this.

The original working title of this book was “My God!” as I felt there was an opportunity to present a different take on the God portrayed by the three key monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and arguably reinforced by the Torah, Bible and Koran. That God would require me to reflect on my own personal values, and have:

1) A belief all humans are created equal

2) A commitment to free will

3) Integrity

4) A better personality than a petulant Hollywood starlet

5) Perfection (or a close approximation)

6) Some deep, well considered thoughts about life, the universe and everything

7) A sense of humor

While I will argue all of these attributes are essential for any deity worthy of our respect, this is not about creating a God – it’s a reinterpretation. God has suffered mightily at the hands of humans (and probably men in particular). From the moment someone contemplated or assumed there must be something greater than themselves, individuals have chosen to speak or write on behalf of God. Unfortunately, many of these representations on behalf of the almighty:

a) Reflect the morals, knowledge and beliefs of their time

b) Present the reporter as the recorder or interpreter of God’s words (with some very poor note taking)

c) Make God look like a bit of a bastard

Huge amounts of good and bad are performed in the name of God. On numerous occasions, God has been modified to serve the goals of individuals or groups without much thought for what God would really look like or want. Amazingly, some beliefs have not updated their view of God over time. It’s important to recognize a changing perspective on God reflects a change in OUR understanding of God, not necessarily a change in God.

While I do wish to defend God, and present the All Powerful in a better light, I can comfortably admit the content of this book:

1) Is not based on an authorized interview.

2) Has not been checked for accuracy by the Omnipotent One.

3) Was not carried to me by angels or delivered to me in a vision.

It may be appropriate to consider this God’s unauthorized biography, written to set the record straight, by an associate (or hanger-on) who feels there’s been misrepresentation in the media. I can’t guarantee everything will be 100% accurate, but I’ll do my best and you can judge the results yourself.

Finally, before embarking on this journey with me, you should be aware this book is a mix of logic, common sense, personal opinion and pathetic attempts at humor. If you don’t feel one or any of these should be applied to a discussion of God, you may want to read something else.

Ultimately, this book is about finding my God; it may or may not be about finding yours. If you’re not open to contemplating a God potentially different to your current perceptions, put this book down and accidentally knock it into the nearest trash can.

I hope this book is the beginning of the discussion, not the end. Any reasoned critiques and perspectives are welcomed with open arms - any rants, unreasoned vitriol or sledging should probably be saved for someone who would care. Future editions will include copious references to religious texts and changes due to intelligently presented feedback, debate, corrections and ongoing introspection.

PART ONE: GETTING THE JOB

THE NATURE OF GOD

Question 1: How do you become God?

Before we can have any decent discussion of God’s existence, looks or preferred football team, it’s essential to understand what qualifies someone/something to be God. While it’s probably not a role you fill out a job application for, it might be worth considering the basic requirements.

Prior to delving into this in more detail, it’s always important to start at the wellspring of all-important cultural perspective – Hollywood. If this knowledge distillery is to be believed, primitive tribes will appoint you their God if:

a) You have a “fire stick” that goes “bang bang”

b) Can hide the sun if the tribe is disbelieving

c) You have a couple of cool magic tricks

d) Someone important in the tribe believes your arrival has been prophesized

Breaking this down into its smallest parts, you have to be smarter or more technologically advanced, more powerful (or perceived as such), be able to perform “miracles” and have the power of myth on your side.

Although I don’t consider myself part of a primitive tribe, some of these elements do seem to resonate with the job criteria. However, I’m relatively confident if aliens landed tomorrow:

1) I’d regard them as aliens.

2) Some group of humans would regard them as Gods.

This vaguely pessimistic perspective on human nature cuts to the core of the search for God – God isn’t God because some humans perceive this to be the case. To truly qualify for the job you have to be able to show the skills, experience and aptitude for the role.

So what is the difference between an advanced life form and God arriving on the planet?

a) Different luggage?

b) Attitude?

c) More people being smited than usual?

Luggage is probably not the key differentiator. However, it would get more interesting if the visitor claimed to be God, and less so if it was smiting people left, right and center - particularly if I were one of the smited.

This brings me to the essence of my God. I’m not even going to open the floor to discussion for the first three prerequisites:

1) Integrity

2) Intellect

3) Indestructibility

Many of you may be shaking your head in silent disbelief – I hear you[1]. However, we’ll discuss some other criteria like omnipotence, omnipresence, creating the universe, and a predisposition for footbaths later in this wealth of contemplation.

As mentioned earlier, my use of the 3I Index[2] to qualify my God in no way increases the likelihood of me being right, God existing, or me winning the lottery. However, here’s my reasoning:

Integrity – originally it was “Goodness” but it didn’t start with “I” and seemed a little pathetic. Integrity has, well, … integrity. If you’re a devil worshipper or megalomaniac you may feel integrity is highly over-rated. I do not. Even if God met all of the other potential criteria (yours or mine) I simply couldn’t respect a God who was a fan of dishonesty, murder, rape, theft or the kid who stole my favorite teddy bear in fifth grade[3].

My God has integrity.

My God believes living a good life has intrinsic value. If my God were in charge it would be a little disappointed in the intolerance of many of God’s supporters – I’d like to believe God can recognize goodness and integrity regardless of its source. In addition, my God would have reverence for questions, questioning and the pursuit of one’s own personal connection to their God.

Intellect – originally it was “Knowledge” but it didn’t start with “I” and seemed a little inadequate. Intellect implies the ability to apply the knowledge available. It’s not much use if you know everything but can’t apply it to anything or perceive its value. Let’s face it, if God is having trouble pulling a few syllables together, it’s highly unlikely the universe is going to be functioning without a hitch.

Having intellect is one thing, magnitude is another – when it comes to my God’s intellect there are two major pre-requisites:

a) God has to be smarter than me.

b) God has to be smarter than everyone else.

People who know me may argue that I feel these two items can be distilled to “God has to be smarter than me.” This is irrelevant. If God isn’t the intellectual leader in the universe, several things become apparent:

1) God’s current job performance seems commendable.

2) There may be other candidates available to fill the role.

3) The whole place could implode upon itself at any moment[4].

Between integrity and intellect, this suggests my God has access to all the knowledge in the universe and can apply this in a just and constructive manner.

Indestructibility – Fortunately, both of the words I considered, indestructibility and imperviousness, started with “I” so there wasn’t much need for debate or contemplation. Both words sort of imply another “I” word – immortal. Regardless, if God’s going to “cut the mustard” there really can’t be much potential for a takedown. Whatever form God ultimately takes, it can’t be one where sheer force, cunning or kryptonite can result in defeat. It’s sort of tough to argue you’re all-powerful if you can be beaten.

As we wander through the questions we’ve summoned for God, we’ll definitely find additional characteristics attributable to God. However, the three “Ins” for being God are essential to any self-respecting deity.

Conclusion:

You can’t be my God unless you have integrity, intellect and indestructibility. Whether this is the case for your God is for you to work out. However, given the carefully researched[5] statistics in the table below, you may want to consider these factors as possibilities.

To suggest these characteristics complete the list would be selling God short. However, if you can’t show all three prerequisites on your resume, you’re not my God.

Question 2: Where is God?

Assuming we accept Earth is one minute speck in the universe(s), my God can’t be limited to terrestrial activities. If God’s completely focused on Earth, and the remainder of the universe is merely window dressing:

a) God’s planning skills leave a lot to be desired.

b) Let’s add “unlimited budget” to the Godly characteristics.

While no major religion appears to argue for an earthbound God, it is important to acknowledge the implications of a “universal” God. A God limited to Earth is:

1. Going to have a tough job maintaining connection with mankind as it explores the universe

2. Can’t really lay claim to omnipotence with any great confidence

My God will remain intimately connected to mankind throughout its history. In primitive times, Thor the God of Thunder or Neptune the Sea God, were valid explanations for, and ways to connect to, God. However, the existence and magnitude of our universe, and the high likelihood we’ll explore it at some stage in humanity’s future, demands a God able to stay connected with us wherever we go. This is not an example of God changing to suit our needs, but our understanding of God improving.

Given the need for omnipresence across the universe, the obvious next step is to ask “How?”

Scientists are still trying to understand where a large proportion of the universe’s matter is, and in what form. One theoretical material, often referred to as “Dark Matter,” has been posed as a possible explanation. Could this be God?

The good news is, it doesn’t matter[6].

If God has to be omnipresent, the way this state is achieved is for God to know and us to find out. However, working within the confines of our incomplete knowledge, we can argue for God being physically or spiritually present.

To be physically present in every corner of the universe would imply God is the universe (i.e. every piece of matter is a part of God). This creates some fascinating questions:

a) Could this be the meaning of “created in God’s image”?

b) If there are more intellectually advanced beings in the universe, why would humans be favored by God?

c) If humans are the most advanced beings in the universe, what are our responsibilities?

d) If humans are the most advanced beings in the universe, couldn’t God have done a better job?

While the idea God is physically present in every corner of creation is an appealing one, and may actually be the case, I lean towards a spiritual presence as the driving force.

Whether you believe in the forces of evolution or some form of intelligent design, when we talk about what differentiates humanity from all other known living organisms, it is not our physical form or genetic code. There’s fairly good evidence to suggest we’re only a couple of mutations away from a completely different result.

Other living creatures show intellect and values, but humans appear to be the only ones to have articulated deeply contemplated treatises on justice, honor, love and other values. Obviously, our ability to live in a manner reflecting our values is one of the key themes underlying all of the major religions, and fundamental to a meaningful, satisfying life[7].

Values, philosophies, intellect and beliefs are differentiators creating opportunities and responsibilities for humanity other organisms don’t enjoy. This higher-level thought allows those who believe in God to make a connection. It doesn’t matter which God you believe in or what religion you are affiliated with; assuming there is a God, we can connect to through prayer, mediation or scientific discovery, it happens on a non-physical level.

Even if God is present in all physical matter, the spiritual and intellectual element underpins our interaction with God.

Conclusion:

My God may exist in all matter but it is not a pre-requisite. In contrast, God must be omnipresent spiritually and intellectually, and able to communicate with me – even if it is only through the magnificence of the physical universe or personal relationships made through the intellect and values we’ve developed.

It would be great to be able to have a direct and open discussion with God but I don’t require it. A God playing in the spiritual/intellectual realm doesn’t need to talk directly to me – I can find out truths and sharpen my values and beliefs by interacting with others and using my[8] brain power.

Question 3: How much power is enough?

You may have been wondering about “all powerful” or omnipotent as a qualifying criterion for being God. While I am tempted, it doesn’t start with “I,” precluding an inclusion conclusion.

Although you might believe leaving omnipotence off the list is merely a pathetic effort to add another question or create some gratuitous word plays, the truth is far deeper – I’m not convinced God has to be all-powerful to pull the gig off.

Let’s start with the implications of the two most commonly used phrases:

Omnipotence: Having infinite power

All powerful: Having all power or more powerful than all

Having infinite clout would certainly qualify you for at least a tie on our “Most Powerful Being in the Universe” competition and being all-powerful seems to trump all comers. However, if God does have one or both of these characteristics, there seems to have been some reticence to put this dominance to use.

If you believe God created the universe[9] or just started the wheels of the process in motion, the implied level of power is pretty impressive. Admittedly after seven days work, and a little animosity with Adam and Eve, it appears the God of the Old Testament felt obliged to take several billion years off[10]. However, the point is not to question God’s work ethic but to accept God’s stitching the cosmos together would involve significant wattage.

If God didn’t create the universe, how much influence is required to qualify for the top job? As God has already been identified as indestructible, there’s really no argument for defensive power in the form of physical strength, and what action would merit physical force?

The answer may lie in comparing power in the physical and spiritual realms and addressing the influence of:

CAN’T vs. WON’T

In either sphere, muscle doesn’t have to be used to exist. For example, there are currently nine countries with a “viable” nuclear weapon and five “nuclear weapons states.” The sway conferred by this status doesn’t require gratuitous dropping of bombs to make the point – having the capability is enough.

Similarly, God could be all-powerful without controlling every event in the universe. However, if God does direct everything, there are some serious job performance issues to be addressed:

a) What’s with all these natural disasters, famines, plagues & general catastrophes?

b) How do criminals get away with anything?

c) Why isn’t there better surf in Colorado?

Conclusion

The existence of crime, disasters and the vagaries of our personal environments would strongly suggest a benevolent God does not control every happening in the universe. Whether this is due to a commitment to free will, the fight between good and evil, or a God who simply couldn’t be bothered, doesn’t really matter at this stage. The bottom line is that my God of integrity is clearly not interfering in every day to day activity in the cosmos.

If God doesn’t act in all aspects of the physical realm, it doesn’t rule out the ability to do so. While this ability is not a prerequisite for my God, I’d have to admit to being a little bummed out if it didn’t exist – we’ll explore how this might happen in the next section.

Question 4: Does God impact the physical world?

Many would argue that God has shown control over the physical world throughout the ages – parting the Red Sea, turning water into wine, healing the blind, bringing the great flood. Still others refer to “Acts of God” when describing major catastrophes. Let’s look at these two subjects separately.

It’s not the role of this book to determine if God did particular things two thousand years ago. There are plenty of well-written arguments surrounding miracles identified in various religions. However, if God can’t influence the physical world:

a) It sure takes a lot of the fun out of it.

b) All those prayers before battle may have gone to waste.

c) Thanking God for your team’s touchdown or goal may not be as important as some people think.

As discussed in the previous section, there’s pretty solid evidence to suggest God, given the required integrity, is not impacting all physical events. On this basis, does God, who we haven’t even confirmed as having a physical form, impact on the physical world at all?

I am 100% confident my God is not the source of the poorly labeled “Acts of God.” Whether it’s tsunamis, earthquakes, floods or pestilence, any God who thinks the raw, unselective violence of these events is fair to force upon humans, flora or fauna, doesn’t get my vote.

For those who argue “Acts of God” are ways for God to punish sinners, couldn’t an intelligent God do this with a little less “collateral damage?” I suspect most people who’ve experienced a disaster zone would regard the destruction as relatively indiscriminant – good people are impacted just as much as “bad.” Any God who thinks untargeted punishment of all for the sins of a few is good management, doesn’t understand basic psychology. Similarly, anyone who sees all of the victims of natural disasters, from unborn children to the frail and elderly, as “deserving” of the punishment inflicted upon them, simply doesn’t see the world the way I do.

Having established that my God is far more prominent in the spiritual plane than the physical, I still think there is a role for God in our physical world. Not surprisingly, this role occurs somewhere in the intersection between the physical and spiritual realms. This crossroad occurs where prayer, faith and commitment are exhibited by intelligent beings.

Clearly, this opens the door for every Tom, Dick and Harry to claim they’re:

a) Intelligent beings

b) Praying, faithful or committed (or should be) ☺

c) Doing God’s work

While the first two items will always be up for discussion, the last one is where the real issue lies – many people claim to be channeling the wishes of God, but I don’t hear God claiming this to the same degree.

A brief wander through history and religious texts shows the following acts claimed to have been performed at God’s will:

1) Offering one’s son as a human sacrifice[11]

2) Annihilation of all men, women & children in a conquered city[12]

3) Forgiveness of sins via the purchase of redemption

4) Killing of Olympic athletes

5) Killing of innocent civilians in terrorist acts

These acts are not consistent with my God’s demands or requests of believers. However, they shouldn’t reflect on the validity of the deity these perpetrators claim to represent – the acts reflect the challenge we face differentiating between the wishes of God and the proclamations of potentially flawed humans on God’s behalf.

Conclusion:

God can act through people and influence the physical universe. However, it’s our responsibility to assess claims of acting on God’s behalf are consistent with our understanding of what God would truly aspire to do.

Question 5: Did God create the universe, Earth, or your back yard?

In a previous chapter, I left God’s options open on whether there’s much interaction between God and the physical universe. Based on my God’s commitment to certain values, I can’t argue for complete control nor rule out this ability. When it comes to answering the question of creation, I can unequivocally say:

“I don’t know.”

Having read arguments from atheists to religious zealots, I’m thoroughly convinced no one else knows either. One of the reasons no one can claim a definitive insight is our inability to really address the questions any answer generates:

a) If God created the universe, who created God?

b) If God existed before the universe how was the most complex being created first not last?

c) Regardless of who or what created the universe, was there ever “nothing” and if not, why not?

d) If there was “nothing” at some stage, how did it become something?

These questions are key to the ongoing conflict between science and some religions – if you don’t have faith, the evidence seems at odds with a creationist God but is short of a completely satisfying answer. However, we can “hang our hat” on:

1. The universe is probably billions of years old, not thousands.

2. Earth is a very, very (insert “very” several billion more times) small piece of the universe[13].

3. Humans have existed for a miniscule portion of the universe’s existence.

These three observations are supported by the evidence we currently have at hand. At some stage in the future, it is possible God will let us in on the joke and advise us all of the evidence was skewed to lead us to a misguided conclusion, but I wouldn’t hold your breath[14].

While the evidence has clear implications for how we should interact with God, and understanding our place in the universe, it doesn’t preclude God from “setting it all in motion” – maybe God created the framework for evolution, the expansion of the universe, atomic structures and all the other stuff. I’m open to this argument but would make the following observations:

a) If humans are the “center of the universe” God has a very inefficient strategy for reaching the goal.

b) If God planned life to be unique to Earth, what’s the rest of the cosmos for[15]?

Conclusion:

So did God create the universe? I’ve already admitted I don’t know and you should feel comfortable that writing a couple of hundred words hasn’t crystallized it much further for me. However, the answer probably doesn’t matter anyway – creating the universe is not a prerequisite for my God. I’d be much more impressed By a God who:

1. Valued creation

2. Supported the improvement of what was created

3. Led by example

So let’s explore further…

Question 6: Does God really give a damn?

It’s hard to write about this question as the answer seems self-evident – if God doesn’t care, why should we? It is possible there’s an intelligent, indestructible being in the universe who doesn’t care about me, or humankind, or anything of any great merit. It’s also possible, depending on your definition of “integrity,” that such a being could have integrity and still be stunningly ambivalent.

If God doesn’t care whether we:

a) Live or die

b) Act with integrity

c) Utilize our talents

d) Are happy or sad

why would we choose to interact with it?

Interestingly, there’s a case for this God.

Firstly, God could offer something valuable above and beyond love or affection – a sounding board, information, guidance, access to heaven, answers to prayers, referential power, … anything we might value enough to recognize or assume it exists. Delivering on any of these items doesn’t demand God cares. In addition, if God is indifferent, it makes it a whole lot easier to explain the random acts of destruction thrown at various spots around our planet on a regular basis.

While this God could be slow to interact with the universe, integrity means more than simply living within logical structures – it implies a commitment to honesty, justice and the full utilization of the skills we’re honored with.

So, God’s inherent integrity may be the saving grace. If we view the universe from a physical perspective, what difference does it make if atoms are arranged in the form of living beings or simply in vast clouds of various lifeless compounds? If God is concerned about the “progress” of the universe, the only two factors able to genuinely change are the nature of life and the nature of consciousness.

If God is intelligent, indestructible and has integrity, but has failed to develop any emotional attachment to the betterment of the universe[16], it’s hard to argue for any relevance to our lives. Yes, God might still be the source of some vaguely amusing “conversations” but if God doesn’t care, it sure puts a dampener on the relationship.

With or without God, the universe is a fascinating and profound structure. Its physical existence is a magnificent monument to the tenaciousness of matter. Life is a spectacular opportunity whether it is unique or common. However cool consciousness might be, it also could turn out to be mundane. We don’t know what we don’t know, but the earnest pursuit of a “higher consciousness” appears to be the activity offering the surest path to God.

Conclusion:

The question of whether God cares has multiple dimensions:

a) Does God value life?

b) Does God value intellect?

c) Does God value spirituality?

d) Does God value values?

There’s a long list to explore later in this tome. However, for my God, there can only be one conclusion – God cares about humanity and me, probably in that order. As to values, I’m certain God has some, I’m just not sure they’re the ones we expect.

Question 7: Can God experience emotion?

Emotion is a function of life and consciousness. Inanimate objects do not appear to experience emotions. Some living creatures don’t seem to be able to translate the emotion into something enriching their existence[17], making it a reflex not something of greater value. We experience a gamut of emotions, and without them life would be far less interesting. At the same time, animals can also be seen to experience fear, joy, anger and love in some form.

This tends to suggest that God, being a slightly more advanced being than us, should be able to experience emotions too. From a human perspective, this opens a magnificent can of worms. Emotion is the lifeblood of our daily interactions – without love, loss and joy[18], life might take on duller tones. However, emotional reactions are the driving force for plenty of arguments, discrimination and distress in our lives as well. An emotional God could really screw things up.

At various stages in our interaction with God, we’ve made efforts to explore God’s emotional side. In the Christian Old Testament, God is variously:

a) Jealous of any other Gods we might consider[19]

b) Angry the Israelites can’t get their act together

c) Surprised by Adam and Eve’s pursuit of knowledge

d) Vengeful enough to kill every person and animal in Jericho

Some of these incidents cause me to question the merits of an emotional God. However, a God devoid of feelings is highly unlikely to be able to empathize with us in any meaningful manner. In addition, we can take comfort from the general improvement in our understanding and control of our own emotions as we get older – if we can become “better adjusted” in one hundred years or less, what can God achieve in billions of years?

The depth and breadth of emotions experienced by God is probably incomprehensible to us. With an intellectual or spiritual connection to all living beings, God might understand all the emotions we experience. And, while we might put love at the top of the emotional hierarchy, maybe there’s something more? Regardless, it seems likely the pursuit of this knowledge is a driving force for life “beyond just living.”

Given the time God has had to prep for the emotional tests accompanying the position, it is reasonable to expect that God can handle feelings as well as any human being. Admittedly, the correct emotional responses are probably reflected in your own values and beliefs. On this basis, a better understanding of God’s beliefs should lead us to further insights on this front.

Conclusion:

If God is on a higher intellectual plane than us, it seems highly likely God experiences emotions but reacts in a manner befitting such intelligence and maturity. Understanding how this translates into actions or contemplations is probably part of the evolution of our own intellectual and spiritual journeys – both as individuals and as a species.

Question 8: Can God experience pain?

As physical beings with a nervous system, we can experience pain. I’ve already argued my God seems more likely to primarily inhabit the spiritual plane. In addition, God has to exhibit indestructibility – surely this precludes experiencing pain?

On a physical level, I’m highly dubious God has anything approximating a nervous system allowing pain. I don’t see God crawling out of bed[20] and accidentally stubbing a toe on the Milky Way, or getting a stomach ache each time a black hole “eats too much.” However, humans and other animals can experience intellectual and emotional pain and there’s a decent chance God can too.

If God actually cares about something, it’s reasonable to assume the potential for pain if that something didn’t play out the way it was hoped. Examples might include:

a) The inability of humans to “play nicely” with each other[21]

b) Our scientific progress starting to outpace our ethical and philosophical progress

c) Almost every celebrity marriage

d) The New England Patriots “perfect” season in 2008

Conclusion:

If we can experience emotional or spiritual pain, there’s no reason God wouldn’t be similarly endowed. Determining what might cause God pain is probably a little more complex than this question allows, but it’s likely to parallel sources of painful feelings in our lives. When we explore God’s values we should get a much clearer picture.

Question 9: Is God lonely?

God’s ability to experience emotion and pain opens the doors to a wealth of potential pitfalls. If God values the betterment of humankind or just the planet Earth, there are probably plenty of reasons to get a little upset. If you’d had some role in creating or supervising this potential utopia, the results so far could get downright depressing.

One of the long-argued potential drawbacks for being God, particularly if there’s only one of you, has been loneliness. Those contemplating the nature of God have argued we were created to address God’s loneliness or interaction with us was essential to God’s mental well-being.

I’m not buying it.

Although it is possible God might find some daily amusement or even the occasional enlightenment or joy from interacting with us, there’s an entire universe available. Even without another living creature in the remainder of the cosmos, there’s rich beauty to experience at different levels of the physical universe (from sub-atomic particles to galaxies) and any suggestion God “needs” us might be significantly overstating our case.

This should not for a moment preclude God liking us, enjoying our company or gaining something from interacting with us. However, given the gap between our current state of consciousness and God’s, I suspect this plays out a little like the typical grandparent/young grandchild interaction...

As a gross generalization, grandparents tend to enjoy the company of their young grandchildren, play games with them and vicariously cherish the innocence of youth. However, when they return to their own lives they simply enjoy the other gifts life offers them.

Conclusion:

My God is more than capable of enjoying existence with or without humans. Even if we are “as good as it gets” when it comes to intellect within the universe, God has enough intellectual and spiritual opportunities available, and the emotional fortitude, to enjoy whatever is offered.

Question 10: Is God an egomaniac?

If you were the most intelligent being in the universe, and indestructible, there are two certainties:

a) You wouldn’t have a whole lot of trouble in the dating pool.

b) It would be pretty hard not to be highly impressed with yourself.

Given the preponderance of our sporting, entertainment and political superstars to big-note themselves, it seems more than reasonable to be a little “up yourself” if you happen to be God. At various times in history, we have described God as “jealous” and reported God’s preparedness to smite those who are not suitably genuflected.

Within the realms of our experience, it’s hard not to expect God to be a bit of an egomaniac – evidence certainly tends to support the observation:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”[22]

This belief may be more a reflection of our own failings than God’s reality. Firstly, there are many accomplished humans who find a way to contribute to society without letting their ego get the better of them – surely God, with unlimited intellect and integrity can equal the humility of humanity’s best?

Also, the intrinsic value of modesty or vanity doesn’t need to be debated to dispel any Godly egomania. A healthy dose of self-confidence seems appropriate but if God has a rampant ego, controlling anything else in the macrocosm might be out of reach.

Conclusion:

Somewhere in God’s first few billion years of existence, the opportunity arose to develop enough self-confidence to act without arrogance and address issues in a balanced manner. Even if intelligence of the magnitude of humanity has never existed before, I’d like to think my God would have fixed any mistakes of over-confidence before now.

Question 11: Is God fallible?

For God to have any risk of being fallible, there has to be right and wrong. Before the universe fostered life, it’s hard to see how these concepts hold much meaning:

a) The wrong planet was created?

b) A rock rolled in the wrong direction?

c) A massive gas cloud was overly insensitive to those around it?

Addressing right and wrong, we tend to assess it in the light of deliberate actions and their implications – a dam breaking and killing innocent people, is tragic, but a dam being blown up to cause the same result is wrong.

If there’s no intent underlying a particular action, then applying a measure of right or wrong has no merit. On this basis, asking if God is fallible is really asking whether God, when given a logical dilemma to solve, could make a mistake or moral error.

Obviously, if God created the rules, it’s a whole lot easier for God to avoid fallibility. However, you’ve probably encountered one or two rule makers who made the rules but couldn’t abide by them. In addition, God could still leave items off the shopping list or forget to give worms eyeballs.

All of this implies logic and morality are absolute – you only need to look at a rule like “Thou shall not steal” to realize what starts as a simple rule has many subtleties upon further contemplation. Maybe a better rule would be something along the line of:

Thou shall not steal, with the following exceptions:

1) Unless it is a matter of life or death with the following exceptions

a. When you could have just asked for the stuff with the following exceptions

i. When you didn’t know

ii. When there wasn’t anyone to ask

b. When it’s also a matter of life and death for someone else with the following exceptions

i. When you didn’t know

ii. When mitigating factors yet to be determined work in your favor

c. When it was your stuff in the first place with the following exceptions….

Given the 3,263,378 different exceptions, and the possibility some might be:

a) Contradictory OR

b) Circumstance dependent OR

c) So dubious as to defy categorization

It’s fair to say most people could identify a moral quandary where right and wrong would not be absolute. Therefore, for God to pass the infallibility test there has to be perfection in:

a) Process

b) Morality

c) Imperfections and gray areas

Much as it’s amusing to contemplate God forgetting, or even spilling, the milk, any God of mine would have enough computing power to avoid fallibility through oversight. While there’s room for discussion over God’s role in the creation of morality, there’s an excellent chance God has a better grasp on its ins and outs than anyone we know. Given God’s required integrity and intellect it’s highly likely God:

1) Knows the rules as well as anyone

2) Has the demeanor to implement them in a consistent manner

3) Can get the easy stuff right better than we can

The ultimate question is whether God has the capacity to take gray areas and identify black and white, or has some deeper level of thought allowing navigation of these non-absolutes of morality. One of these is probably true, but I don’t know which or what it ultimately looks like.

Conclusion:

God’s had the easy stuff under control for some time. When it comes to moral challenges without obvious decisive solutions, the best case is that God has it all worked out and is infallible. The worst case is there’s a group of unanswered dilemmas in God’s in-box waiting for a definitive perspective.

So is God fallible? Less fallible than us, and possibly not fallible at all.

Question 12: Can God influence outcomes?

So far, my God has a decent level of intelligence, minimal fallibility and seems to hang out in the spiritual realm. The easiest way to avoid mistakes in interacting with us would be for God to mind his, her or its own business. However, billions of believers feel God influences outcomes on Earth. This ranges from the smiting of evil-doers to small miracles, to getting people out of bed in the morning.

Ignoring the implicit creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy[23], the argument for God impacting the physical world is straightforward:

a) God, even if completely dedicated to the non-physical realm, can interact with humans (and who knows what else).

b) Humans can interact with the physical world.

c) Through humans, God can influence outcomes.

As to the direct smiting of evil-doers or God sticking the proverbial nose into human affairs, it’s hard to prove it doesn’t happen, but there’s pretty strong evidence it doesn’t happen all the time.

If God can influence outcomes, can feel emotions and cares at all about humans or the planet, there’s a lot of moments in history where a decisive spanking of the bad guys would have been useful. For example, in recent history God could have stopped:

1. World War II death camps

2. Genocides in Rwanda & elsewhere

3. Segregation and slavery

Failing to act in these instances can only be attributed to one of three causes:

a) God didn’t care.

b) God couldn’t act[24].

c) God chose not to act.

The chance of my God not caring is zero – others may be interested in an insensitive God but I expect at least some vague level of interest. Similarly, even if it’s only through humanity[25], there’s fairly convincing evidence God can interact with the physical world.

On this basis, we have to conclude God chose not to act decisively in the moments of extreme brutality where innocent victims[26] were impacted in ways unacceptable to my God.

Many people might argue this is convincing evidence there is no God. If this is the path you want to take, feel free to skip to the end of this book and peruse my thoughts on the question. However, if we consider why my God would not intervene, I’m confident it’s not due to:

1. My God feeling the victims had any culpability

2. No-one asking

3. God being distracted attending to more important matters

Given the magnitude of these atrocities, the only reason I can find consistent with a God worthy of respect is an unmitigated commitment by God to letting humanity solve its own problems. This doesn’t minimize the extreme horror we should feel at people allowing these acts to happen, or the pain God would have felt watching these crimes occur. However, it does reinforce our own individual responsibility to act in a manner consistent with an evolved and nuanced morality[27]. It also offers the enticing opportunity of bettering ourselves and humankind by evolving our understanding of right and wrong.

Conclusion:

God can influence outcomes on Earth. Whether it’s elections, miracle recoveries or feeding the poor, many believers see and implement this opportunity every day. The evidence for God intervening individually on a grand scale is less convincing – it’s possible, many believers will identify events convincing to them, but it seems more likely the random whims of the universe will continue to have free reign in most cases.

Question 13: Can there be more than one God?

When you can interact with Jews, Christians, Muslims, and followers of other God-driven religions, it’s hard to argue against there being the potential for more than one God[28]. If we travel back to when the Greeks, Romans or Egyptians were setting the pace, the idea there were multiple Gods was the norm.

Early tribal religious beliefs often referred to multiple Gods who had roles influencing the things important to that particular clan. In Grecian history we saw:

a) Nike – God of victory

b) Apollo – God of music, archery

c) Hermes – God of travel

Now, in our modern age of enlightenment we’ve turned our back on such simple-mindedness and moved on to:

a) Nike – God of sports shoes and advertising

b) Apollo – God of moon walks and speed skating

c) Hermes – God of clothing and accessories

The religious zeal many people show in their pursuit of wealth, fame and power might suggest these are the new “Gods” of our modern society. However, this fails to address the fundamental issue – assuming God is not purely a figment of our imagination[29], God’s form is already set – it’s up to us to divine[30] what it might be.

Obviously, our ancient ancestors started the exercise by attributing natural events like thunder to the wild partying of their drunken Gods. As our understanding of nature increased, the need for these attributions decreased and our forbears look relatively primitive and possibly a little silly for their understanding of God.

With the benefit of several thousand years of deep thought, research and ritual we now have just over fifty percent of the world’s population sold on a single God[31], another billion or so Hindus who might “sit on the fence” on the single or multiple God scenario, and a whole lot of other people who range in their belief from “No God” to who knows what.

About the only thing you can guarantee is that thousands of years from now we’ll probably look pretty silly too.

We can only do the best we can with what we’ve got, so how can we reach forward and grasp a better understanding of God? One of the reasons this book is written the way it is, is so we see:

a) Only we as individuals can truly assess what our God looks like.

b) As our understanding of the universe evolves, so will our understanding of God and our relationship.

c) Moments yet to come will test rigidly defined interpretations of God.

Conclusion:

So, can there be more than one God? It appears our evolving relationships with God point to a single deity – there’s a whole lot more monotheists out there compared to three thousand years ago. Using the same logic, the volume of atheists, agnostics and apathy also seems to have grown in a meaningful manner. This suggests the battle might be over whether there is one God or none – we’ll see.

However, having come to this conclusion we should always remember “100 million smokers can’t be wrong” – numbers alone do not make an action or argument right. It does appear we’re moving to a better understanding of God, with one being the maximum number, but assuming this to be true doesn’t make it so.

Question 14: Was God Created?

Having explored whether God created the universe and come up with a resounding “it doesn’t matter to me,” it is incumbent upon me to explore the flip-side – could there be a deity worthy of attention who was created? In exploring this question we have only two real candidates for the creators of God:

1. Humanity

2. Whatever weird and wonderful forces drive the universe in the absence of God

The argument for us goes something like this:

a) Human communities benefit from the cohesion a common religion and set of values provides.

b) Communities with religious belief have an evolutionary advantage over those without one.

c) Therefore humans create a God or Gods to facilitate a more orderly society.

This is a fascinating concept, particularly as the three premises seem (in order) highly likely, believable and worthy of contemplation. For a growing number of people the three assertions are enough for them to conclude there is no God.

If there is a God, I would expect it to value the skepticism driving people to question its existence and worth. Given the malleable nature of previous beliefs about God, the only constant seems to be change. As our understanding of nature and the universe expands, surely we should be open this change.

Apart from various claims of direct and unequivocal contact (e.g. Moses when being given the ten commandments), humans have to create or imagine God because most of us don’t have day-to-day visual contact. On this basis, suggesting humans created a supernatural being may have merit but we continue to[32] have no empirical way to assess whether God exists or is just of our own concoction.

One concern with God being the creator is the idea that the most complex being came into existence first. Many atheists would argue this is a compelling argument for God’s non-existence. Probability and the small amount we know about the universe probably reinforce this perception.

However, this gap in understanding should drive us to accept God could exist. With this in mind, there are two obvious conclusions:

a) If my God exists, it’s probably not in a form that directly parallels[33] the descriptions most commonly expressed by the leading religions.

b) We shouldn’t arrogantly assume we know what we don’t know.

The last five hundred years have been extraordinary in our rate of knowledge accumulation. However, discarding God because we’ve found contradictions in the literal interpretation of man-written tomes seems a little hasty. Maybe we’ve created God without fully consulting with the Almighty to determine the truth of the matter? Maybe our increasing knowledge creates an opportunity to know God better?

Accepting the current form of God we relate to may have some very human constructs gives us greater freedom to explore the possible nature of God. I’m not convinced my God needs to be the creator. I am convinced science takes us back through history to a time around the creation of the universe in a manner much more convincing than stories of Adam and Eve or a seven-day construction period. However, neither science nor religion do a great job of explaining what came before that.

If both empirical, logical thought and religious insight can’t answer the question yet, I’m prepared to work with what I’ve got. We’ve got a stunningly beautiful and interesting universe to explore in virtual perpetuity but mankind’s greatest achievement, certainly in the context of our current knowledge of the universe, is consciousness and higher thought.

As far as we can tell, about 13.75 billion years ago the universe was a lifeless mass of “stuff”[34]. Then, after a fireworks display to top them all, the universe began to expand. About nine billion years later the Earth and our solar system were formed. If life didn’t form somewhere else in the universe, after ten billion years where the cosmos did not even have the building blocks for life, life was created (or came into existence) on Earth.

Even if you believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago, the concept of moving from “stuff” to “life” is an awe-inspiring moment – one that couldn’t really be conceptualized. Ignoring the possibility of God the creator for a moment, up until the moment life was formed there was no framework for life – it was something beyond the total knowledge of the universe – the possibility had been there but there was no one and no thought to harness it[35].

A few billion years later, humans developed (or received) the capacity for consciousness and deep thought. As far as we’re aware, this was a totally new paradigm with no reference point or starting example in the universe.

When the universe has facilitated the move from “stuff” to “life” to consciousness, is it really so hard to consider there might be another layer to the cake?

Conclusion:

My God could be the creator but might also have come into existence in the process of our universe developing. It doesn’t matter as long as there’s the prerequisite intellect, indestructibility, integrity and… all the other stuff we’ll discuss later.

Question 15: Can God evolve?

Several authors have very intelligently chronicled the evolution of God from tribal Gods, to polytheistic communities to the dominant position of monotheistic religions today. If nothing else, these studies show humanity’s perceptions of God(s) have changed markedly over time. Whether a change in our views reflects a change in God is far harder to answer.

One of my least favorite passages in the Christian Bible involves God ordering Joshua to kill everyone in the city of Jericho after it has been conquered[36]. If this should be interpreted literally, or even regarded as an acceptable concept, it is completely inconsistent with my God’s values. On this basis, the only way this God could be mine is if:

a) God was misquoted.

b) God has evolved the standards of acceptable behavior since then.

c) There’s some mitigating factor to justify this atrocity[37].

Ultimately, I hope God was misreported – with significantly more experience than any human could aspire to at the time, I’d expect God to have the integrity to go with one of his[38] own commandments. The second option is not really acceptable to me - how could I elevate something that condoned and instigated mass murder, then failed to show any overt remorse for several thousand years, to being my deity?

This singular example[39] reinforces my concern that God has received some very bad press. A God with integrity can’t issue a ban on murder in one moment and then encourage it the next[40]. If the Christian/Judaic God really endorsed this act he’s not my God. However, if God chooses not to contradict distortion of the facts, and we have to work it out for ourselves, I understand completely.

Conclusion:

The history of our interaction with God suggests our perceptions, representations and interpretations of our deity can evolve. In addition, suggesting God wouldn’t have the ability to learn[41] seems a massive underestimation of God’s capabilities. However, given the potential for thousands, millions and even billions of years of prep work and contemplation, you’d expect the process of learning and evolution to be well ahead of our own. On this basis, this process might be imperceptible to us mere mortals.

Question 16: Is God Male or Female?

Not all believers perceive God as a male, but based on raw numbers alone, and assuming adherents align with the teachings of their religion, the vast majority lean this way. Labeling God as “the father,” as many followers of the leading monotheistic religions do, seems to reinforce this perception[42].

This obvious bias implies a superiority of masculinity over femininity my wife tells me I can’t include in this book. It also begs three major questions:

a) Why would God choose to be male[43]?

b) What male characteristics would assist in being God where female characteristics wouldn’t?

c) What value is there in being a particular sex when you have no need to procreate?

The only way to address the first question is to make some gross generalizations, hopefully offending members of both sexes, and then determine whether these supposedly unique traits of each sex would facilitate being God. For example, it could be argued that men’s best traits are:

1. Physical Strength

2. Preparedness to die for noble causes

3. Ability to process copious amounts of alcohol

Women’s best traits might be:

1. Ability to feel empathy

2. A nurturing nature

3. Ability to make men think they’re in control

Although the list is dubious in both length and content, there are supposed attributes of both sexes potentially useful to God in some way, shape or form. Surely God would simply take the best of what’s available and use it with intelligence and integrity?

The argument for the dual or asexual nature of God becomes even more apparent when we reflect on the reason for sex in the first place. I don’t think I’ll be going too far out on a limb when I suggest the two sexes exist primarily to facilitate procreation[44].

We’ve already established God is indestructible, so any procreation or sexual activity would purely be for the sake of entertainment[45]. I’d expect God, with access to all of the physical and mental resources of the universe, to have moved past mankind’s obsession with sex and onto more important matters.

Conclusion:

It’s hard to find a compelling argument for God to be male or female. Asserting or assuming God has a sex seems like an attempt to make God more relatable through a physical attribute[46] rather than a conclusion based on deep reflection. Any argument for a particular sex would tend to diminish the standing of the other – a result inconsistent with any equality between the sexes. I expect my God to have accumulated the best traits from males and females and have no need to exhibit one sex or the other.

Question 17: What sexual orientation would God be?

After the previous question and answer, you could validly ask what the merit of asking about God’s sexual orientation could possibly be. There are two key reasons to explore this question:

a) To upset people, create controversy and significantly increase the number of people complaining about this book without reading it

b) To generate an understanding of what might be important to God

As implied in answering the previous question, if God needs to procreate through sexuality it would be an asexual act – who’s God going to have sex with? As we’re talking about the most accomplished entity in the universe, I’d expect a less messy reproductive process[47].

Sex and reproduction are only important to us because we’re mortal and we seem to think continuation of our species is something we should care about. Given God’s dual or asexual nature, and extreme intelligence and integrity, there’s probably a deep understanding of the joys of masculinity and femininity. This would extend to a deep understanding of the bonds between men and women, women and women, men and men.

Any relationship, between any combination of the sexes, becoming deep enough to encourage sexual bonding is probably a vaguely amusing byline in God’s observations of us. If procreation is not an important aspect of God’s existence, it seems highly unlikely God would have an issue with sexual relationships that can’t produce offspring. My God would judge a relationship on the depth of the connection, commitment of each partner and its underlying integrity.

Conclusion:

Sex and sexual orientation is almost certainly a bigger issue for a species coming to terms with higher thought, but fighting its base instincts, than it is for God. To put it bluntly, God probably doesn’t give a @#%!.

Question 18: Is God black, white or some other shade?

Most of the visual depictions of God I’ve encountered present him[48] as a white guy with gray hair and a preponderance for pointing at stuff. However, there probably are pictures of God with black, Asian or other racial features. Even the religions or believers with the temerity to portray their deity as female[49] may vary God’s race.

It makes absolute sense for individuals to represent their God in a manner reflecting their race – it makes God more accessible and understandable. Unfortunately, the likelihood of God having any racial features has to be placed in the “relatively slim” category. It is even less likely God, with a presence spanning the universe, has a particular bias to one racial group, on one planet, in one obscure corner of it.

The volume of evidence suggests there is very little to differentiate the human racial groups from each other. While it’s accepted, and surely been proven empirically, white men can’t jump, the other variances are so insignificant as to be unworthy of discussion. The smartest member of one race will always be smarter than the majority of another, the fastest member of one race will always be faster than the majority of another – whatever measure you use, no race can claim any meaningful and decisive superiority over another due to their genetic make-up[50].

If we accept humans are humans regardless of race, it’s hard to see why God, who has a dubious claim to a physical form anyway, would bother differentiating either appearance or demeanor to reflect a particular race.

Conclusion:

Believers have the right to depict God in any manner allowing them to better identify with their God. However, any person who claims their God is of a specific race is not talking about my God.

Question 19: What does God look like?

We’ve discussed race and sexuality so it’s probably time to cut to the chase. The first part of this answer has to be an exercise in exclusion. God probably doesn’t look like anything we’ve seen or could comprehend. On this basis:

a) Dogs or cats

b) Morgan Freeman

c) Leprechauns

are all highly unlikely to be reasonable representations.

Given God’s stated preference for activity in the non-physical universe and a propensity to be in all places at once, there’s a decent argument for pointing in any direction and suggesting “that’s what God looks like.”

Could God take a physical form and walk among us[51]? I would think a being with the power and intellect we’ve been attributing to God could pull it off pretty easily. However, if you refer to the Bible or Koran there’s implied agreement that such an event doesn’t happen very often. Interestingly, since the completion of the two books, God has been keeping a much lower profile. This doesn’t mean there haven’t been any physical visitations but it certainly reduces the potential for sightings.

A lack of physical evidence for God isn’t a big deal. Whether you think there’ll be a messiah, a second coming or some other momentous physical interaction with your deity, the physical realm just doesn’t seem to be where God hangs out. In addition, if God’s everywhere at once, it’s hard to argue the need for a physical presence in an infinitesimal portion of the cosmos.

Conclusion:

The only conclusion we can reach about God’s “look” with any confidence is that we don’t know. There’s a strong chance any description would be so distorted by our frame of reference that we’re better off accepting we won’t know and moving on to the next question.

Question 20: Does God know everything?

Requiring my God to be smarter than me creates an interesting dilemma – if I’m a “know-it-all” how could God possibly beat that? Fortunately, my actual knowledge and intellect leaves plenty of room for improvement[52] so God is in with a chance of topping me[53].

The primary issue in addressing the depth of God’s knowledge is defining two key words:

1) Know

2) Everything

In examining the “know” aspect we have to consider the magnitude of what we’re asking of God – the ability to consciously parallel process every instant of every day in every location in our vast universe. While doing this God would also have to consciously connect with all beings having thoughts, get the laundry done and mow the lawn.

To complicate matters, “everything” implies the ability to store all of the collected information, form conclusions about its meaning, act upon anything worthy of attention AND calculate the probabilities of future events or to simply “know” what the future holds.

I have trouble tying my shoelaces properly[54].

I’m not going to limit my God by suggesting that knowing everything is impossible. However, to do so would result in a great deal of:

“Atom 263161010321, Molecule 33016261, Instant 778967, nothing to report”

While the numbers are too small by a magnitude of a couple of gazillion, therein lies the dilemma – if you’re the most advanced being[55] in the universe, how much time and energy do you want to spend monitoring inanimate objects? While God might be interested in every moment and atom in existence, there’d have to be a tendency to focus on the more interesting and dynamic stuff. Determining what might gain greater attention requires an assumption and a value judgment we’ll explore later in the book.

Conclusion:

God is probably as enamored with watching paint dry as we would be. On this basis, God probably could know everything but chooses to pay more attention to living things, thinking things and entities taking thought or spirituality to the next level[56].

Question 21: If God evolved, is there any implication to this?

This question is not designed to answer whether God created the universe or not – there’s evidence both sides of the argument see as compelling, and I’ve already stated that I don’t care. However, in the pursuit of better understanding of our own God, following this path may offer some insights guiding you to one answer or the other.

The concept of God evolving within the universe rather than creating it is probably a ridiculous and potentially offensive concept to many believers. If you’re offended or don’t feel the question merits asking, … please feel free to turn the page and move on to questions you find more palatable.

To qualify as my God, any evolved entity would still need the Intellect, Integrity and Indestructibility demanded at the beginning of this exercise. If we accept indestructibility can be achieved in our universe by not having a tangible physical presence, this would fit nicely with many people’s perceptions of God.

On the assumption that God can evolve, we might want to consider what the evolutionary ladder might look like in the context of God – a being with arguable physical presence in the universe. At this stage, the recipe for the existing cosmos seems to be:

a) Have a whole lot of “stuff”[57] sitting in one spot.

b) Blow the stuff up[58].

c) Let the stuff swirl and percolate for a few billion years.

d) By accident, probability, or good fortune, combine the elements required for life.

e) Give it another billion years or two to see what happens.

f) Stumble upon beings conscious of their actions and capable of contemplating, creating and seeking greater knowledge and insight[59].

Where God would start to evolve in this process would be very much up for debate, but the implication is that as the physical universe evolved so did the non-physical. The most compelling evidence for something beyond our material existence is found in… the process of evolution!

Evolution has brought humanity to a point where we are more than our physical manifestations – we have feelings, independent thought, scientific process, faith, etc. – all of these things didn’t exist prior to their first appearance in the cosmos[60]. This process implies there is more to existence than what we see, and offers the tantalizing prospect of the evolution of conscious thought opening a completely new opportunity.

Just as life or thought couldn’t be conceptualized before they existed, the possibility of some form of transcendent existence is apparent regardless of whether God is the creator or not. It’s possible you might relate differently to a creator God than an evolved one, but that’s part of the entertainment of each individual’s spiritual and/or intellectual journey.

Conclusion:

God evolving along with the physical universe is not an easy concept to absorb. While the achievements of evolution in the physical realm tend to support the possibility, if it is the case, God’s role in our lives could be significantly different[61].

Question 22: Is God Universal?

Many religions and their adherents suggest you can only know God if you are of a particular racial group or religious affiliation. Even the three Abrahamic faiths, which purport to worship the same God, can’t agree on the right way to do it, and would ultimately propose the other two faiths have “got it wrong.”

If we take this approach to its most simplistic conclusion, in a best-case scenario[62] the Christians have got it right and the remaining 67% of the world’s population are just kidding themselves. If, heaven forbid[63], the Christians are wrong, less than a quarter of the planet has any shot at a meaningful relationship with God. If the approach can be applied to particular denominations within each religion, things are really starting to look bleak.

Recognizing many centuries passed between provision of the “Word of God[64]” for each Abrahamic faith and its ability to reach all inhabitants of the planet, the idea that God would reject large portions of humanity based on the location or timing of their birth, or the ancestry of their parents, is completely inconsistent with my expectations of God[65].

My God is both inclusive and universal. This implies everyone has an equal chance of creating a meaningful relationship with God and potentially implies much more.

On Earth, humans currently enjoy the status generated by dominating all other species and organisms on the planet. We shouldn’t underestimate the potential for some other organism to usurp us, or for us to usurp ourselves, but currently we think we’re top dogs. Whether this status rules out other terrestrial life forms from communing with God should be regarded as open for debate.

When we apply an inclusive God to the vast expanse of the cosmos, we should note there may be:

a) No other life

b) No other “intelligent” life[66]

c) Other similarly intelligent life

d) More intelligent life

Any self-respecting person who believes in God should probably ask themselves what the implications of discovering any of the above would mean for their understanding of, and relationship with, God.

It was hard enough for me to admit God might be smarter than me – if we encountered beings more advanced than us it would rock my world. However, it’s worth considering whether God might be so inclusive as to relate to:

a) Other terrestrial life-forms

b) Extra-terrestrial life forms

Limiting God to interaction with humans is a valid frame of reference and could be the reality. However, it does imply a rejection of the remainder of life God created or evolved with.

Conclusion:

There is no reason for God to reject other life-forms as advanced as us or capable of evolving to this level. As a result, assuming we’re God’s only focus seems exceedingly presumptuous.

Question 23: Is God Good or Evil?

My God is good. If there is an indestructible entity in the universe using its intellect and integrity to facilitate evil, it’s not my God. Even if it’s the most powerful being in existence, it’s my enemy, not my deity.

The challenge is to determine the real difference between good and evil. As the writer of this book, describing MY God, I’ll define the characteristics of a good God. In the next question we’ll explore how God might define good and evil. Given my inherent biases, there’s probably some compatibility between the two. However, we should not assume the definitions will align perfectly – part of our relationship with God may be the process of understanding the differences between our perception of goodness and God’s view.

Integrating our beliefs with insights garnered through reflection and debate has been continuous throughout history. Less than 100 years ago in the United States, a country with strong ties to belief in God, there were many believers[67] who supported the division of races in society and argued this was both good and God’s design. While there are still people out there who, erroneously I believe, would support segregation, the general tide of opinion has moved away from this. Do we believe God was as misguided as we[68] were, or was it time for the right perspective to identify itself?

I’m confident God watched this unfold and felt racism was wrong from day one. Having better aligned our perspectives is a positive step, but we shouldn’t assume we are now in perfect unison. It’s quite likely there’s still significant room for improvement.

To be good my God would have to subscribe to the following rules:

a) Thou shalt not kill… unnecessarily.

b) Thou shalt not steal…without a spectacularly good reason.

c) Thou shalt not lie…unless it does more good than telling the truth.

d) Thou shalt not cause a global financial collapse of unimagined magnitude.

e) Thou shalt not make up rules without thinking them through[69].

Although this list was designed to amuse me, the need for God to understand nuance is important. No death should leave us jumping for joy, but there may be situations where right and wrong may be blurred or in conflict. Killing someone or something in self-defense is completely different from doing it for entertainment.

Similarly, although this issue does not apply to my wife, no man should be seen to have done wrong when he tells his wife her dress doesn’t make her butt look fat. And while this may apply to my wife, no woman should be discredited because she told her man “size doesn’t matter”.

Conclusion:

There are rules and values a good God would be able to espouse to provide clear guidance on right and wrong. However, given the several billion years of contemplation time, I expect three things from my God:

1) Nuanced understanding of good and evil

2) Far better understanding of these nuances than we’ve been able to achieve so far

3) An unwavering commitment to good

Question 24: How would God define right and wrong?

Rules, rituals, superstitions or beliefs all contribute to our planet’s religions. I’m not questioning the validity of any of them[70] – that’s your job. However, we should ask if God’s perception of right and wrong has been misrepresented in our desire to define it.

The primary reason there may be a gap between God’s view and our own is how wonderful we think we are. Our current knowledge insinuates we are the most advanced beings in the universe. However, in the near future evolution, genetic engineering or E.T.[71] could turn this all on its head.

Let’s ignore extra-terrestrials momentarily as there’s no meaningful evidence they exist or will arrive anytime soon.

It’s highly likely the next one hundred years will bring extraordinary advances in genetic engineering – certain diseases and deformities might be eliminated, the potential lifespan of humans could be extended, stronger or more intelligent humans could be developed. If a “superior” version of mankind were created (let’s call them super-humans) where would the rest of us fit in?

If we’re no longer the top of the food chain, do the super-humans have the right to treat us the way we treat animals? This is not my way of endorsing PETA[72] – if God gave us rules to live by and the rest of creation is ours to plunder, if we’re no longer the most advanced beings in the universe, do we lose all of our rights?

If your answer is no, then you have to ask how God would define right and wrong regardless of our place in the cosmic hierarchy. It’s great if we’re number one, but I expect my God to understand right and wrong from a universal perspective.

I suspect God would address right and wrong on two levels – a hierarchy of intrinsic value and a list of underlying values. Intrinsic value would probably be driven by the lessons of the last few billion years:

a) There’s always been stuff.

b) Live stuff is better than dead stuff.

c) Having a brain is better than not.

d) Consciousness and complex thought are better than just having a brain.

e) There’s probably something even better.

Whether God is the creator or not, I ‘d expect an underlying appreciation of, or pride in, the magnificence of creation. This should engender a respect for everything from stuff to transcendence – and an abhorrence of waste[73].

This pecking order coupled with a passion for efficiency would interact with a basic set of fundamental values (e.g. honesty, constructiveness and commitment) to create a framework for all conscious creatures to work within. Obviously, if you are a life form unable to process a concept like honesty, it would be unreasonable of God to require it of you. Ultimately, this leads to a universe where:

a) Stuff is stuff.

b) Primitive[74] life is valued but functions within the rules of evolution and the food chain.

c) Creatures achieving higher thought are more highly valued.

d) Entities achieving transcendence would be the top tier of our comprehensible universe[75].

The impact of this layering of existence and values will be explored in more depth later in this book.

Conclusion:

God’s perception of right and wrong has to be colored by knowledge and perception of the entire cosmos and the various levels of evolution within it. The resulting rules and view of what’s appropriate or not will be constant, where humanity fits in any hierarchy of value may not.

Question 25: Is God balanced by any other force in the universe?

One of the great questions for any believer is “If God is so good how come so much bad stuff happens?” Early religions explained this as the results of arguments between disgruntled, slighted or trouble-making Gods. Many believers still attribute it to entities like demons or Satan. The real reasons are probably JOE and RUTH.

The Joys Of Evolution (JOE) suggest the last few billion years have seen an extraordinary transformation from lifeless matter to at least one planet teeming with conscious life. One of the tenets of evolution is “survival of the fittest” – or something approximating this premise. In its rawest form this means JOE fosters competition within and between species for limited resources. This struggle is ruthless and continues without the values engendered by higher thought.

“JOE – the tragic reality that the process of evolution is incremental and random. We inherit both good, bad and outdated.”

Having emerged from the contest as the most evolved beings on our planet, we are still plagued by the remnants of the fight. This primitive element to our psyches battles our more civilized thoughts to create issues as diverse as:

a) The need to mark out our territories through war

b) Paying more to sportspeople who contest on our behalf than to those who might improve our physical, mental or spiritual selves

c) A tendency for our society to assume “more is better”

d) The inability of men to control their penises

Anyone who feels achieving the current peak of evolution on Earth means we have no room for improvement:

1. Doesn’t get how evolution works

2. Hasn’t been watching how badly we can get it wrong

3. Probably missed a lot of history classes

JOE will continue to challenge us for the foreseeable future. While we may have reached the point where we can influence our rate of evolution[76], there’s still a gaping hole between our reality and zenith. JOE is not the only cause of human transgressions, but it is one.

If JOE is a reason for negative events brought on by people, Rampant Universe Theory (RUTH[77]) is the key to everything else.

“RUTH - although the universe may be measurable and predictable, no sentient entity guides the forces within it.”

From the moment our cosmos was initiated, there have been forces at work, paying no heed to progress, evolution, schedules or anything else we might impose upon them. These would include:

a) Gravity

b) Weather

c) My children[78]

In the unpredictable macrocosm around us, RUTH reminds us that things can happen without design or control, and this is the default condition. We live in a random environment that is completely oblivious to any goals, desires or aspirations we might have. God might intervene on the odd occasion but probably less often than we attribute, and maybe not for the reasons we ascribe.

Conclusion:

The balancing forces to the goodness of God are evil[79], and JOE and RUTH[80] – two completely unbiased and arbitrary powers. JOE & RUTH are like a driver who unintentionally cuts you off when you’re in a hurry to get somewhere – you can swear at them, attribute malicious intent and malign their intelligence, but the truth is much simpler – they were a random unconscious force, unaware you were there.

Question 26: Is God a random firing of neurons?

Advances in our understanding of how the brain works continue to provide fascinating insights into our mind’s machinations. Researchers can identify sections of the brain related to:

a) Mathematical and logical thought

b) Artistic expression

c) Religion

d) Cheesecake addiction[81]

With these revelations there’s a risk science will assume random firings of neurons, excessive production of dopamine or some other chemical will “explain” concepts like love, loyalty or God. While it’s possible everything can be elucidated by breaking it down into its parts, the evidence seems stacked against this.

For the fortunate few of us who have more to think about than where our next meal is coming from[82], a large part of our lives is devoted to finding meaning in our existence. This can come from relationships, achievement or other sources, but explaining it in chemical terms doesn’t do it justice.

If we could break down love to the interaction of pheromones, a few evolutionary instincts and hard-wired processes within our brain – would it make the feeling less real? As you canoodled with the object of your affections, would you turn to them and say…

“Recognizing your effect on me is hormone-induced and forced upon me by JOE, let’s not pretend it’s anything other than what it is … pure chemistry.”

While I’m pretty impressed by this line, and feel it might be successful on some college campuses, most people actually believe in love as a more evolved experience than lust. Ultimately, we have a choice – endeavor to explain away our most complex emotions through equations and science, or accept there is a moment when knowledge has to give way to meaning.

This is not a criticism of scientific thought in any way, nor should it be regarded as encouragement to accept higher thought or purpose without reflection. However, at some point[83] the chemical, biological and physical transform into something greater than the sum of their parts. The evidence for this is found in… evolution.

As we’ve discussed, there have been three tantalizing examples of the result being greater than its parts before:

1. Lifeless producing life

2. Brainless life producing a brain

3. Intelligent life producing higher thinking

Before each of these mind-boggling changes, what was created did not exist among the entities creating it. Yet, due to JOE, completely new paradigms and levels of evolutionary achievement came to be. The foundations for what we feel, experience and believe are almost certainly derived from our evolutionary history, but this is not a reason to reject their meaning or the opportunity to embrace another level of evolution.

Conclusion:

It is possible all of our experiences with God can be explained by JOE or scientific investigation. However, evolution’s ability to create something greater than the sum of its parts offers every individual the opportunity to explore whether God, or interaction with God, is one of those moments.

Question 27: Is God in control?

In previous discussions we have left open the issue of what God can or can’t control, and the answer to this question won’t change that. This is purely an exercise in examining whether God is in control.

It doesn’t take much research to find the answer. Within three minutes of wandering the internet I can determine the following:

a) Lots of bad stuff happened today.

b) Humans are making a massive mess.

c) My football team is not winning as much as it should.

Any one of these should be enough to convince you God is not in control but it still seems common to hear phrases like:

- “It was God’s will[84].”

- “It’s not for us to question God’s plan[85].”

It probably wasn’t, and yes it is.

We’ve already established God is good, intelligent and has integrity – do we really think God’s to blame for the schmozzle that’s our lives? Apart from the glaring evidence supporting the lack of control, we should also consider the implications if this weren’t the case.

If God chose to organize and manage every aspect of our lives we would lose autonomy and any ability to influence our destiny. We’d be little more than chess pieces moving around a board to a pre-determined script.

Although the concept of my football team winning every game, every year in perpetuity sounds appealing at first, it lacks the richness of the uncertainty of victory and the despair following losses.

God’s commitment to abdicating control through free-will and RUTH gives us the:

a) Privilege of experiencing the ups and downs of life

b) Ability to choose new directions due to the pain of our lows

c) Challenge of an extraordinarily uneven playing field

Some believers would argue they’ve “given their lives to God”, happily surrendered control, and their life is better for it. This assumes two things:

1. God wants control.

2. God will take control.

The issue may lie with the interpretation of “giving your life to God.” If it means moving responsibility for bad events in your life to “God’s will,” it unfairly burdens God with the results of RUTH. If it means reaching out to a higher force to determine how you can improve your contribution and consciousness, I’m all for it.

Conclusion:

“God may referee or coach the game of life for you, but will not play it.”

God doesn’t want control of your life and you shouldn’t want to give it up. Dedicating your life to God and pursuing a positive contribution in your deity’s name are admirable. The greatest gift we have is the ability to seek out our personal paths of fulfillment and take on the challenges RUTH and JOE throw at us. In our commitment to the process, we might just find God.

Question 28: Can God see the future?

This creates an unmatched opportunity for an in-depth discussion of parallel universes, time dilation and Einstein’s theories of relativity… which would require me to understand something about them, so let’s cut to the chase. This is what we know about time travel or accessing information from the future:

1. We can’t do it right now.

2. It seems pretty difficult.

3. Don’t hold your breath.

Of course, God has a few advantages over us – significantly more know-how and computing power, and a non-physical form. If we ever achieve time travel, we can be confident God was capable of it well before us. However, while God may have the ability to wander back and forth along the time continuum, I’m unconvinced there’d be any great benefit or joy in it.

Each day billions of humans, organisms and vagaries of RUTH follow paths involving choice or uncertainty:

a) Will this human look left or right when crossing the road?

b) Will this fish swim through this hole shaped oddly like a predator’s mouth?

c) Will this weather system end up heading north or south?

God could explore the results of each of these “forks in the road” and travel down the 3.26 gazillion[86] different universes these options would create. Unfortunately, this might waste a great deal of effort and take away the pleasure of watching the story unfold. Conversely, God’s ability to be in all places at one time may represent time travel without even trying.

If God can’t, or chooses not to, explore the future, there’s still the potential for using the massive computing power available to calculate the likely results of particular decisions or events. Similarly, if we believe any human has the ability to see the future, whether it’s through intuition, extrapolation or some higher perception, we can feel confident that God could too.

Conclusion:

God probably has some insight into what the future might hold at each moment we face a decision. This awareness would be able to reflect on the physical, psychological, moral and relationship[87] implications before, after and during the decision making process. For those among us driven purely by impulse and instinct, this skill might not be of great value. However, there may be a few people out there who might find this useful – wouldn’t it be great if this was something we could access?

Question 29: What is God’s purpose?

If God has some ether-like form and doesn’t control the universe, at some stage the question has to be asked, “What is God good for?” The answer to this question can be divined[88] by reviewing what we know[89] God has:

a) Intellect, Indestructibility & Integrity

b) An ethereal, omnipresent, universal, good, caring, singular form

c) Power, the ability to influence outcomes and evolve

d) No loneliness, egomania or measurable fallibility

e) Feelings, emotions and the ability to feel pain

f) No sex, sexual orientation or race

g) Values

h) Insight into the future

This should be enough for us to be pretty impressed – even when the powers of JOE and RUTH are allowed to randomly affect the flow of progress and life.

With the wealth of skills and knowledge available to God, the range of reasons for God’s existence could be as numerous as the life forms in the universe. However, in the context of God’s relationship with us, here are a few suggestions on how a being with God’s attributes might interact with us:

1. Repository of knowledge

2. Sounding board

3. Facilitator

4. Guide and mentor

5. Transcendent benchmark

6. Arbitrator

7. Educator

8. Friend

9. Conscience

10. Influencer

11. Comforter

12. Supporter

13. Confidant

14. Motivator

With a little contemplation I’m sure there would be a volume of additional job descriptions and variations we might attribute as possibilities. Given the spectacular resume God brings to the table, the options may be endless. However, with our current understanding of God, there are many things we should consider as improbable roles:

a) Warrior on behalf of mankind or any other life-form

b) Cause of events driven by JOE or RUTH

c) Regular interference with events driven by JOE or RUTH

d) Supporter of particular football teams or sportspeople

e) Source of divine retribution

f) Supporter of bad behavior among believers or non-believers

g) Enforcer of morals or values[90]

h) Sponsor of a particular nation or religious group[91]

Once again, there’s probably a long list of things attributed to God we should take off the table. More of these will become apparent as we explore the interaction between God and humanity in the next section.

Conclusion:

God’s purpose is definitely up for debate. We can come to conclusions on what roles God might embrace or reject but the final decision is God’s. We can clarify them through reflection and discussion with our God, or over a nice cup of tea.

Question 30: Who has the authority to talk on God’s behalf?

If you haven’t worked this out already, I am the only person qualified to speak on God’s behalf[92]. The various reasons for this are:

a) God told me this and I’m telling you.

b) I have studied something and know enough to talk on God’s behalf.

c) Only someone of my stature within my religion could possibly have communication with God.

d) Although I act hypocritically when you’re not watching, when you see me I’m pious and polite so listen up.

e) Look at me – if you were God, wouldn’t you choose me?

Of course, to use a famous English phrase, “This is complete bollocks.” It is possible God may choose people to communicate with us, but I’m prepared to wager it’s fewer than make the claim. This shouldn’t stop you from listening to anyone who claims insights into God, but it always remains your responsibility to assess the merits of any gems provided.

Before moving forward I’d also like to reiterate the following:

1. I make no claim to talking on God’s behalf.

2. If you disagree with my assessments of God, you may be right.

3. You have every right to accept or reject God in whatever form you might perceive.

There are plenty of people who will take the opportunity to talk on THEIR God’s behalf to you. This does not ensure they are talking on YOUR God’s behalf to you.

All this “your God, their God” stuff might lead you to believe I subscribe to a custom God for each individual, but that’s not really the point I’m trying to make. History shows humanity’s perception of God:

a) Changes over time

b) Reflects the beliefs and knowledge of the time

c) Reflects the morality of the time

d) Might just be biased

It is possible one person may have clearly perceived God and provided us with a timeless, unchanging picture of the reality of God. However, I think there’s a decent probability of a gap between our perception of God and the reality – closing this gap is a challenge offered to each individual and to all people. The gap may be due to inaccurate perception (human error) or omission – either way I’m confident there’s more for us to discover, conclude and infer.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, this means for my God there are two certainties:

1) Anyone who says they’re talking on my God’s behalf better have a pretty good and consistent story for me to be interested.

2) If God really needs to tell me something, I’m available.

Question 31: What qualifies us to have a relationship with God?

Given God’s tendency to be omnipresent, there is the potential for God to have a relationship with everything. It’s possible there’s a way for inanimate objects to commune with God, but the conversation would be rather one-sided. Similarly, there may be opportunities for living organisms without brains to connect. However, if we accept the various tiers of evolution, we can also quickly assess their capabilities for communication as we know it:

1. Stuff – stuff all

2. Living stuff – conversationally inept

3. Brainy living stuff – probably repetitive with structured answers

4. Consciousness – has the potential to be more interesting

5. Higher thought – might hold God’s attention

With this scientific assessment in mind, it may be worth considering God as an entity with several trillion friends on Facebook. If you’ve got so many buddies:

a) You’re not going to spend time chasing down the “friends” who don’t communicate.

b) You probably won’t pay much attention to the twits[93] who feel a need to update you on their eating habits and bowel movements.

c) You will be interested in meaningful updates on the highs and lows of people’s lives (particularly if there are some fun photos).

d) You’ll appreciate the people who make the effort to communicate something consequential.

Conclusion:

The qualifications for a relationship with God are simple – have a brain, use it, and stay in touch.

PART TWO: GOD & HUMANITY

(WHAT’S THE DEAL?)

Having discussed the nature of God, we have the framework for seeing what this means for God’s relationship with humanity. As you read through this section, please remember I’m trying to achieve two things:

1) Describe how my God would interact with humans

2) Show there’s consistency between the nature of God and how God would deal with us

Obviously, if you disagreed with me in the nature of God part, you’ll probably have heart palpitations in this section. It is your right to disagree with me on any or all of my suppositions, and I’d be thrilled to hear from anyone who wants to present a balanced, thoughtful critique. However, any name calling, vitriol or grumpiness will place you in the metaphysical corner for a time-out.

As an FYI, to avoid using “God” repetitiously for the remainder of the book I will resort to using a pronoun in some cases. The pronoun I have chosen is “she” because “he” has been overused throughout history and “it” seems a little disrespectful. This should not be interpreted as endorsement of God as a female deity[94].

Question 32: Are Homo sapiens God’s chosen species?

Time to put the basic pieces of the puzzle together – we’ve got a God, with power and influence spanning the universe, who values inclusion and higher thought. Arguably, humans offer the highest level of thought on Earth but we have no idea what else might exist in the universe - other than a whole lot of gas and stuff.

If there are no other more advanced life forms in the universe, we’re God’s best chance for a decent conversation (let’s take a moment and reflect on how tough God’s job might be).

Many religious texts imply God has a unique relationship with us. Usually, this exclusive connection exists because we’re “as good as it gets” in the context of creation, but:

1. Maybe we’re not, and

2. What about the rest of life[95]?

Suggesting we may not be the most evolved species in the cosmos verges on sacrilege for many people, but given the texts supporting our premier status are transcribed by humans, we may want to consider the bias of the source. It doesn’t require a rejection of any religious text as the “word of God” to accept God’s message could be lost in translation, the writer’s frame of reference, or our interpretation.

If we are the most advanced life form, and this generates special privileges with God, I’m not going to reject the opportunity. However, any belief based on this premise would immediately be proven false the moment we encountered our evolutionary superiors.

Even if we do top the evolutionary scale, it seems odd that God would have no interest in the remainder of life on Earth – although the moments might have less intellectual depth, there are still opportunities for joy, beauty, love, loyalty and other experiences.

Reading this, the “rest of life” argument doesn’t eliminate the opportunity for a more meaningful commitment to humanity, so the relationship could still be regarded as unique. Similarly, the “maybe we’re not” concept is only an issue if we find out we’re not.

Conclusion:

Perhaps God does have a “one of a kind” relationship with us. However, I’d encourage a little humility on our part – a God who welcomes interaction with all intelligent life forms offers a richer tapestry of perspective, and a deeper understanding of the gray areas of life and values. If we’re the only ones God’s communing with, it’s a missed opportunity.

Question 33: Were we created in God’s Image?

In a number of the more popular books on God, several of the authors have suggested the nature and magnificence of God is so contrary to anything we can imagine, we might as well accept that as mere mortals, we’ll never be able to comprehend them. Even with an ego as big as mine, it’s hard for me to suggest this description could be applied easily to me. If God is so spectacular there seems very little argument to suggest we were made as physical replicas.

Given my already-stated expectation of God existing in a non-physical form, the chances of me buying into this concept were always relatively thin. The issue becomes even more problematic when you consider:

a) All the evidence points to us being the products of evolution.

b) In the massive diversity of humanity which image would be the one actually reflecting God?

c) If I’m an example of God’s image, she could have done better.

It’s possible God actually looks like Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Halle Berry or some other aesthetically blessed celebrity, but I’d lean toward two other suppositions:

1. We created God’s image in our likeness.

2. Maybe God’s likeness is reflected elsewhere or in some other way.

Conclusion:

Representations of God as a gray bearded male[96] probably reflect our need visualize God in an understandable form. It’s highly unlikely there’s any physical resemblance between us and God. However, it’s not out of the question our thought processes are primitive reflections of the capabilities of the Almighty. Perhaps, part of our relationship with God is closing the gap between the knowledge and thoughts of God and our own?

Question 34: Was the universe created for mankind?

The answer to this question may be influenced by whether you believe the universe was created by God or not (and whether you agree with my views on questions 33). However, a few key observations might guide us to a realistic conclusion:

a) If the entirety of history was represented by a day, we or our ancestors have participated in about one minute[97] of the action.

b) As a portion of the universe, Earth is approximately… 1/50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th[98].

c) As portion of the universe, humans have physically explored approximately 1/4,000,000,000,000,000,000th[99].

d) The universe is expanding at the speed of light. Until we can travel this fast or find a few shortcuts, we’ll be playing catch up.

You can check my math, but regardless of the final number of zeroes, there’s really only one conclusion you can come to – if God created the universe for us the project came in well over budget and was completed well before the majority of it was needed. If the cosmos was created purely for our benefit, she is a massive over-achiever and very poor resource manager.

If you don’t require God to be the creator, the likelihood of the universe being created on our behalf has to wander closer to zero. If, as scientists surmise, it all started with a big bang dispersing inanimate stuff throughout space with no specific plan, we’re not quite as important as we might think.

Conclusion:

While our significance in the universe may have moved down a notch or two, the realization we’re not the center of creation is a massive opportunity. Without the implied superiority of being God’s only focus, we can consider what this means for our relationship with God, and other people and life-forms.

Question 35: Why doesn’t God appear to us?

I’m sure there are numerous believers who would claim to have seen Christ, angels, the devil or various other representatives of God. Similarly, many people have observed religious images in toast, corn chips and ketchup. Not a whole lot of people claim to have seen God.

The absence of God from our daily lives has been a key criticism leveled by atheists over the years. “If God’s so powerful and magnificent, why not show us and remove the suspense?” they ask. God’s failure to show up is cited as proof she doesn’t exist. God’s reticence to “show her hand” is certainly worthy of contemplation, but not without other explanations.

Assuming God does have an ethereal form, how exactly do we expect her to make her presence known:

a) Coming to Earth in human form and making claims to divinity[100]?

b) Broadcasting an “Introduction to God” show in everyone’s heads?

c) Turning up in some other form allowing scientists to poke and prod?

While some of these ideas have more merit than I originally intended, they all assume:

1. It would be a good thing for God to be seen.

2. God would have a reason to be seen.

3. God could take a form we could relate to.

If God turned up in a convincing fashion it could have a devastating effect on the human psyche:

a) All the atheists would be pissed off because they’d be shown to be wrong.

b) Many or all believers would be distraught as the God they saw wasn’t the God they perceived.

c) A lot of people would question why they have to work when God could be doing it for them.

While I don’t find these persuasive arguments for not gracing us with her presence, we should consider there may be genuine reasons to remain a recluse.

A more interesting question might be whether there’s a compelling reason for God to be seen. If God has the ultimate intellect, is good, and has integrity, turning up to show off or gain adulation seems inconsistent with God’s likely personality. As a universal God, she’s better off working away in the background getting the job done, than presenting herself to one species in one corner of the cosmos. It’s arguable whether there would be any benefit to God if she chose to present herself overtly to us.

Conclusion:

In our discussions of the nature of God, I did contend she might be able to influence the physical universe and left open the concept of her taking a physical form. However, it’s not out of the question God’s form would preclude creating a physical representation we could relate to or believe in. Ultimately, God showing herself probably doesn’t serve any purpose in pursuing her goals or role, and may even be counterproductive.

Question 36: What’s the deal with this “free will” thing?

I’ve been tiptoeing around this issue for too long – it’s time to clearly articulate the implications of the interaction between JOE, RUTH and God, and how this impacts humanity.

The existence of JOE (Joys of Evolution) means there is a slow moving, unguided force of change rippling through history using chance, and trial and error, to move matter through the five known forms of existence:

1. Dead stuff

2. Live stuff

3. Live stuff with a brain

4. Live stuff capable of advanced thought

5. Transcendence

There are no favorites in this process, but humanity, straddling the third to fifth forms of existence, is on the verge of being able to influence JOE’s impact on its species. This could have profound effects on the rate of change on Earth and how humanity views JOE, but will not change JOE’s plodding approach elsewhere in the universe[101].

RUTH (Rampant Universe Theory) speculates there are both slow and fast moving forces within the universe impacting JOE and the products of JOE (e.g. us). These forces have no goal or agenda and interact randomly with their immediate physical location. While some of these forces may be predictable and even manipulated by living creatures, their impact can be profound. If humans can practice random act of kindness, the forces of RUTH practice random acts of blindness – the results can be positive, negative or neutral.

From humanity’s perspective, the third piece of this triumvirate is not God but us. While the forces of JOE and RUTH can act upon us and impact our lives in unpredictable ways, we can also act against them and choose how we react to them. This is called free will.

Assuming God has the power to run our physical universe, she ultimately has three options:

1. Control everything

2. Control some things

3. Control nothing

If God chose to direct everything, we would not have free will – we would be completely ruled by the whims of our omnipotent deity. This would remove our ability to influence our own destiny, make mistakes or learn. If this were our reality, the God we have described wouldn’t have facilitated the messy state of affairs we call our existence. On this basis, either God can’t control the physical universe or has chosen to control less than its totality.

If we accept all of the miracles reported by the religious literature and individuals as factual events, it’s still fair to say they don’t happen very often. This would suggest God’s interference[102] in our lives is either infrequent or more subtle than the daily moving of mountains.

Conclusion:

Free will is our power in the universe – it creates unlimited opportunities for the reactions and directions we might take in addressing what JOE and RUTH throw at us. The randomness and lack of intent behind the forces of JOE and RUTH doesn’t diminish their ability to influence our lives in seemingly unfair ways. The existence of free will reinforces our responsibility for our actions – we can ask God for assistance but the responsibility for the results will always lie with us.

The universe will act on us regardless of what we do – the question is whether we push back, go with the flow or give in.

Question 37: Does God provide a level playing field?

Any person born into slavery, poverty or a dysfunctional family can confirm we don’t all start with the same opportunities in life. Our starting point, surrounding environment, and almost any other differentiating factor, can influence our potential for success[103]. The source for this uneven playing field is not God but JOE and RUTH. These two forces account for:

a) Your genetic make-up

b) The accumulated success or failure of your ancestors[104]

c) Where you were born

d) The political, social and meteorological climate surrounding you

e) Your religion or lack thereof

f) Your native language

g) etcetera, etcetera, etcetera…

While your parents, friends and family may try to facilitate your growth and development, some of their actions may become part of the forces of RUTH – you can’t control them, you may be able to modify them, but they will act on you in random ways, sometimes not reflecting their intent. Yes, everyone around you has free will, and can choose to influence you positively or negatively, but they can’t guarantee the.

Given the plethora of environmental factors working for or against you, about the only things every human receives equally are:

1. Access to God (the lines are always open)

2. A clean slate with God

Conclusion:

No one starts out on this planet with no challenges, but some are dealt less attractive hands. This inherently unfair situation is out of our control, but our response to it is not. I expect God relishes successful beating of the odds as much as we do, and is always available to cheer on the underdog.

Question 38: Whose God is right?

One of the more interesting aspects of religions has been the history of antagonism between them. Whether it’s the events of 9/11, the Christian Crusades, the issues in the Middle East or a tendency for conquering nations to impose their religion on the losing side – there’s been an ongoing fight for supremacy. Not all believers or religious leaders are intolerant of other religions, but there’s enough conflict out there to perpetuate the tension.

Many atheists point to the perpetual bickering between religions as one of reasons why believers should drop it all together. While couching your disagreement in religious terms doesn’t mean it wouldn’t happen otherwise, the level of animosity between supposedly peaceful religions certainly suggests an inflated level of self-righteousness on someone’s part.

Given the supposedly common God of the three major monotheistic religions, it seems incredible they can’t see more “eye to eye” instead of “eye for an eye.” Ignoring significant differences in ritual, the core beliefs of each religion seem to have some commonality – be honest, don’t jump your neighbor’s wife, show God due respect. Unfortunately, there also seems to be an underlying:

a) Need to be right

b) Preparedness to limit membership of the religion

c) Need to convert rather than understand

Thousands of years ago when the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam were being laid, humanity had much less understanding of the world and universe around us, and the concept of a national or racial God might have made sense. Today, claims of superiority by any single race or nation should be recognized as an anachronism based purely on an inaccurate historic perception. Similarly, one religion making unequivocal claims of superiority probably deserves some skepticism.

The ongoing struggles and enmity among Jews, Christians and Muslims are essentially based in different interpretations of God’s desired rituals and rites, nature, and access routes. However, the God underlying this process is common[105]. This tends to suggest the problem doesn’t lie with God, it lies with our perception of God and our ability to acknowledge a clearer picture of God has appeared.

Ignoring the existence of other potentially valid religious beliefs, what’s fascinating about the ongoing tension between the three “big hitters” is, in the sense of choosing the right God, they could all be right. If this were indeed the case, the various views on how to relate to God beg the questions:

a) Do we just choose the most recent because “newest” is best?

b) Do we just choose the oldest because they “got it right” first?

c) Why does God keep changing her mind?

d) Why is there a tendency to see a threat in new understanding of our universe, rather than a deeper understanding of God?

If there is an omnipresent God, who for some weird reason wants to interact with humanity, what possible reason could it have to exclude major groups of us arbitrarily? Mankind has only had relatively easy access to other geographic locations for a few decades. God, with direct access to everyone from day one, seems unlikely to have seen the same barriers we did. Maybe some religion’s tendency towards exclusion reflects what humans perceived, rather than God’s wishes?

The idea we have to “choose” God makes sense – if God exists and we ignore her, we’ll have no relationship and lose any possible benefits. However, I don’t see a meaningful argument for God excluding any human being due to their:

1. Place of birth,

2. Race of birth, or

3. Pace of birth[106].

If God can have a cerebral connection to every person on Earth, but chooses to limit access to people who have heard a certain message communicated by humans to an elite few, she:

a) Has some major fairness issues to address

b) Isn’t using her touted intelligence effectively

c) Can’t blame RUTH for the failed connection

My God would religiously[107] commit to each human being born with an equal opportunity to connect to her. Any religion has the right to create hurdles to membership, but if their belief in their exclusive path to God is correct, God has failed the majority of the planet’s population as:

1. If you can be converted to the “right” religion then not every person is given such an opportunity during their lives.

2. If you can’t be converted to the “right” religion then most people don’t have a shot from the moment they’re born.

Conclusion:

Given the inclusiveness of my God, there’s really only one conclusion I can come to regarding who’s God is right – everyone’s. The paths to her are highly likely to be varied and it’s quite possible she welcomes any attempt to connect, however inept. The paths to God offered by our planet’s various religions are rich and fertile ground for communing with her, but claims of exclusive rights may reflect the wishes of the human religious leaders rather than those of God.

Question 39: Why should there be tolerance of all perspectives?

Even if you’re unprepared to consider other people might have a meaningful path to God different to yours, there’s a number of reasons to ponder tolerating everyone who’s wrong:

1. It’s probably consistent with the teachings of your religion.

2. You can’t convert them if you kill them.

3. You have a limited chance of converting them if they hate you.

4. There’s an excellent chance they won’t bother you if you don’t bother them.

5. Your claims to being the most correct, definitely unerring, smartest and unquestioned authority on Earth might be an exaggeration.

These reasons do not imply you are wrong, but however remote the possibility, there is indeed a possibility.

Some learned individuals[108] have suggested the tendency of humans to be religious may be an evolutionary trait facilitating better communities. Because common religious beliefs tended to lead to common morals, ways of enforcing rules and greater identification or bonding with “your tribe,” the groups who adopted religion thrived while the less connected societies or individuals died out.

If this hypothesis has any merit, mankind’s rapid ascent to world domination may have created a situation where the binding factors of each religion now work against us finding common ground. In theory, as the breadth of human society expanded, religions would have expanded and merged to create a greater understanding and commonality. Perhaps the rapid change in transportation over the last thousand years outpaced humanity’s ability to absorb and consolidate religious beliefs, or maybe I’m impatient.

Conclusion:

The values underlying many religions don’t appear to differ as much as many people might think - a little tolerance goes a long way.

Question 40: Does Science threaten God?

From God’s perspective, it’s hard for me to understand why science would pose a threat. Many atheists and believers seem to feel it’s an “all or nothing” contest between two opposing forces. However, if she did create the universe there should be nothing we can find out prohibiting her existence, and if God came into existence, the pursuit of knowledge would be perfectly aligned with her own aspirations. Perhaps, the threat is to our previous interpretations of God rather than to God herself?

The mediocrity of the risk posed by science to God is crystallized by a simple[109] analysis of God’s supposed arch enemy – evolution. Without getting too complex, the theory of evolution suggests that over time, via genetic mutation, environmental factors and other stuff, organisms will change in a manner allowing them to better adapt to their environment. This evolution can be exhibited in the form of:

a) Physical traits

b) Behavior

c) Other stuff

As we’ll see later, JOE can be applied to morality, social views, religion, ability to drink beer – you name it. However, even with an essentially unlimited reach, evolution’s only potential issues with God seem to be:

1. If God’s the creator how did she come to exist?

2. A six thousand year old planet is inconsistent with the current scientific data.

As science doesn’t have any better explanation for what came before our universe, and because I don’t require my God to be the creator, I’m going to give the first issue a “zero” on the threat scale. The second issue is only a threat if you feel the need to argue that creation stories in religious texts (e.g. seven days of creation, Adam and Eve) represent historical fact rather than stories enlightening the readers in some other manner.

Given the Bible’s creation story fails to include something along the lines of:

“On the seventh day God created dinosaurs but was unhappy with the first draft and decided to nuke them with a giant asteroid,”

I suspect the creation stories were either poorly transcribed or they were not intended to be taken literally.

If you’re with me so far, you may be warming to the concept that science and God are not opposing forces. But wait, there’s more! God and science may actually be extraordinarily compatible.

We’ve already discussed how current theory suggests the universe started as a whole lot of dead stuff, some of which became live stuff and, as far as we know, we’re the top tier of the game so far. Does this or any other well-supported scientific theory:

a) Preclude the existence of God?

b) Demand there’s nothing beyond our physical universe?

c) Suggest we can’t evolve further (and possibly in ways that give us insight or access into a transcendent space)?

d) Stop us reaching for a better understanding of any moral truths?

An intelligent God with integrity is completely consistent with the pursuit of knowledge and greater understanding of the macrocosm. The only aspect of religious belief threatened by science is:

1. The interpretation of some religious text

2. The historic or moral value of some religious text

I have no desire to contend anyone’s “holy words” are not “the Word of God.” However, every religion has historic instances where beliefs or rituals were modified to recognize the greater enlightenment coming with time and contemplation. Resisting change is a natural instinct when your beliefs are under threat; genuine communication with God and reflection might lead more people to accept the complementary nature of God and science. Similarly, whether it’s abolishing slavery, segregation or sexism, those who have questioned the historic precedents created by mankind have driven the meaningful leaps in our relationship with ourselves.

Conclusion:

Science and God have the potential to walk hand-in-hand. If God is the creator, science is an opportunity to understand her handiwork. If God is not the creator, there’s still nothing about scientific process posing a threat to the Almighty. If scientific method had the potential to prove or disprove God’s existence[110], shouldn’t we want to know[111]?

It’s time to dispel the myth of science and God’s incompatibility, and focus of seeking truth wherever we can find it.

Question 41: Are fossils real?

As a fan of scientific thought, this question needs to be addressed to explore its impact on evolutionary theory and the questions it poses about God’s relationship with us.

Not everyone shares my belief about the compatibility of God and science. Some of these people are so fearful of science they have questioned the merit of the methods used to date fossils. With the Earth being only a few thousand years old, they argue, the scientists must be wrong or lying or grossly misled or adding a few extra zeroes for their own entertainment.

To explore this further let’s break the potential arguments into their crystalline form:

a) The use of observation, logic and scientific thought doesn’t work or is not being used properly in this case

b) The story we think we’re being told by the fossils is not the truth

Essentially, this supposition turns the atheist’s argument of “why believe in something you can’t see, measure or show exists?” on its head and asks “why believe in something you can see, measure and show exists?” Without going into a deep argument about the merits of logic and analytical thought my answer would be:

“What other choice do we have?”

Ever the skeptic, I applaud the questioning of a generally accepted concept, but if the measurement, logic or reality being experienced can’t be relied on, we can only reach two possible conclusions:

1. Our reality has no basis in fact and the observations we make within in it have no value in understanding the universe surrounding us,… or not… or sort of maybe surrounding us but not…

2. God is trying to trick us

Both scenarios suggest our intelligent God lets us exist in an environment we could never really understand, and any gains in “knowledge” are mirages. A God with integrity wouldn’t allow us to suffer the ignominy of living lives with no context or potential for meaning beyond her amusement. If this is the case, stop the Earth – I want to get off.

Conclusion:

The results of scientifically structured dating methods suggest the Earth is quite old and fossils are the remnants of previous life forms. If these interpretations are untrue, God is manipulating the apparent laws of physics and chemistry to mislead us.

Fossils are real and very old until someone shows otherwise. This insight neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. We can embrace both the reality science posits and the relationship God offers.

Question 42: Is God a racist or nationalist?

Given my statement in Question 18 that:

“…, any person who claims their God excludes people of other or specific races from the equal opportunity to experience and connect with God is not talking about my God,”

there could be a valid argument this question has already been answered. However, there are three good reasons to revisit this issue:

1. God’s color, or lack thereof, doesn’t underpin the argument.

2. A quick view at history might be instructive in other ways.

3. The lack of a level playing field is often overlooked.

It would be nice to be able to ignore this question and say believers have hung up the racist/nationalist hat. Unfortunately, while it tends to be limited to the perceived extremes of our religions, we still see:

a) Leaders of sovereign nations calling for the elimination of other nations

b) Undercurrents of religious antagonism coloring decisions surrounding war and conflict

c) Believers denigrating other races or nationalities

Throughout history different nations, and potentially races, have come to the fore. However, when you examine the range of human experience, to suggest one nation or race is consistently superior across all meaningful endeavors is not supported by the facts.

With the differences between humanity’s races so insignificant as to be meaningless, historic instances of slavery, racial segregation and intolerance show three things:

1. We’ve got it wrong in the past.

2. We’ve improved over time.

3. There’s more to be done.

Unfortunately, in each major instance of racial discrimination there have been believers who supported or condoned these practices. Fortunately, in each major instance of movements to defeat racism, there have also been believers driving the change. This should reinforce three key points:

1. Humans interpret God’s values, beliefs and aspirations for humanity.

2. Humans can misinterpret, be influenced by their own knowledge or lack thereof, and make fundamentally flawed judgments.

3. Greater knowledge and reflection can lead those same humans to correct their mistakes.

My God wants us to become better as individuals and as a species. A pessimist could argue that over time the magnitude of baseless discrimination has expanded from the tribe over the hill, to the city down the road, to the country next door, to entire races. However, our view of our community has expanded from our tribe, to our city, to our nation – a vast improvement in the inclusiveness of our societies. This exciting growth in acceptance is good, but the path to greater improvement is laid out for us.

If we accept the greater inclusiveness we’ve achieved is better than the unfounded biases and persecutions of the past, there are three things we should take to heart:

a) We, including our religious leaders, were wrong.

b) It’s better to admit you’re wrong than perpetuate the problem.

c) God was cheering on our greater insight every step of the way.

Conclusion

While our planet’s races have varying starting points, their underlying potential and make-up are the same. There is no evidence to support my God preferring one race over another or excluding one from her graces.

Question 43: Is God a sexist?

How would a God of no defined sexuality, who has accumulated the best traits from both sexes, perceive males and females? As this God has no permanent physical form, it’s unlikely the corporeal differences between the two sexes would have any great meaning. From an intellectual perspective, various studies have found slight variances between males and females, but the differences are not huge and the advantages can flip from one sex to the other depending on the test.

Historically, when there’s been differentiation between the sexes, it seems women have consistently been the ones to lose out. Whether it’s being regarded as a chattel, or denied basic rights, women have been dominated by men in the opportunities and power structures of society through custom, physical strength, or control of resources.

The twentieth century saw giant leaps in the recognition of women as equal members of many societies. As with the evolution of a better understanding of the equality of races, the greater equality between the sexes should be celebrated, but there is still a long way to go:

a) Even in countries where equal rights are enshrined in law, opportunities for each sex are not always equal.

b) Many more countries are still male-dominated.

Believers can be found on both sides of the equality of the sexes spectrum but there has been resistance within the hierarchy of many of the established religions. If God’s beliefs are reflected by the actions of several Christian Churches, or sections of the Jewish or Muslim faiths, it would be reasonable to assume God believes women are unable to connect with her[112] as effectively as men. If women are stopped from having certain roles within the religion itself, particularly those supposedly offering a more meaningful or prestigious connection to God, this diminishes any stated commitment to sexual equality.

I’m unaware of any evidence suggesting women have ever been at a meaningful intellectual[113] disadvantage to men. Therefore, men’s dominance probably began in tribal settings where physical strength (hunting, fighting) was the most valued commodity and then flourished as physical labor dominated most of our history[114]. Customs and teaching reinforcing man’s superiority or leadership role have perpetuated this myth till our present day.

Just as JOE facilitated insight into the merits of inclusiveness from a racial perspective, the same can be said for acceptance of women as equals. This progression is driven by a better understanding of God’s perspective and has begun to combat the historic restraints nurtured by RUTH[115].

As the father of two spectacular young girls, it concerns me that women may:

a) Even in one of the more progressive countries on the planet, have their perceived opportunity to connect to God be limited by their choice of religion

b) Have significant variations in opportunity based on their country of birth

Conclusion:

There is no discernible difference between the sexes in the eyes of my God. Any meaningful movement to equality of opportunity and treatment, in life and perceived connection to God, is a better reflection of her aspirations for women.

Question 44: Does God want to be worshipped?

Being God is a pretty stunning achievement. It seems self-evident such an accomplishment should result in:

a) Recognition

b) Celebration

c) Worship

d) All of the above

e) Some of the above

f) One of the above

g) None of the above

As the owner of a score of 25% in a Psychology multiple choice test with only four options, it’s probably a bad idea for me to present any question in this manner. However, whether we should worship God is fundamental to understanding the relationship God offers us, and what she thinks of herself.

In Question Ten we concluded God’s ego was well-managed by her intellect and integrity. If being worshipped were a driving force for God, the easiest solution would be to take on some magnificent form and make the insignificant humans bow down in reverence. God’s apparent failure to do this, or our failure to notice it, would suggest she has higher priorities.

If we accept God’s level-headedness and intellect, the reason for worship taking a back seat might become more apparent. If you’ve ever been good at something, you’ll probably agree it’s nice when someone notices and gives you a pat on the back or some recognition. Comments like “Great game,” “Thank you” and “you’re a God” all might make us proud of our actions. However, if we really love what we do, there’s usually more joy in talking about our passion with someone who shares it, than simply getting generic adulation. Appreciation and recognition is always more meaningful when the person offering it has a genuine understanding of the effort and passion going into the achievement.

In the context of this question, God’s passion is almost certainly us. While God may have other interests, humanity’s ability to achieve higher thought, pose difficult intellectual and philosophical questions, and create meaningful and deep relationships with others, is the best Earth has to offer.

To use a sporting analogy, God is the greatest coach a team can have, she’ll accept your praise with humility but will have a better relationship with you if you:

a) Occasionally do something useful on the field of play

b) Enjoy talking with her about how to make the team better

c) Are earnest in your commitment to making the team successful

d) Respect the game and all of the players in it

e) Obey the rules and win with integrity

f) Build a relationship based on mutual respect

g) Don’t expect her to win or play the game for you

Whether you’re winning or losing, God is the coach who can teach you the most, will always be at every game, and will always deal with you in a fair manner[116]. If you’re prepared to give it your all, it could be the start of a wonderful relationship.

Conclusion:

My perception of God’s limited interest in worship is not an indictment of any religious celebrations, practices or events – just as a sporting team can celebrate its victorious coach so can you. However, just like a marriage, unmitigated worship will only get you so far – the quality of, and commitment to, the relationship is the foundation of a successful connection with God.

Question 45: Should God be communed with?

The essence of the answer to this question is held in the response to Question 44. However, the importance of “communing” with my God needs to be emphasized further. Assuming humans are the highest form of intellect (other than God) in the universe, I imagine the first 13.5 billion years for God were spent shouting:

“Go JOE go, go JOE go, go JOE go….”

Not a particularly inspiring visualization but still a pertinent concept to consider. God’s enthusiasm for JOE pushing evolution ahead as soon as possible must have been palpable. Now, with the opportunity to have conversations with billions of people capable of deep thought, who have to address complex social and intellectual problems with regularity, God must be thrilled with the opportunity for some truly meaningful relationships. Couple this with our potential for transcendent thought and pushing evolution at a more rapid pace, and our emergence must be fun to watch and facilitate.

God, as the most advanced entity in the cosmos, is the ultimate resource for those trying to:

a) Understand the meaning of life

b) Address complex problems

c) Seek new ground for human advancement

d) Gain some comprehension of the opposite sex

e) Write witty and humorous observations about God

I’m still working on the last one, but the spectacular nature of God as a resource for our lives can’t be overstated. Apart from an unparalleled volume of knowledge, there’s also the potential for meaningful contemplation, conversation, and working with God to connect with like-minded individuals across the planet (and maybe even universe!).

The form of communion[117] you choose is really up to you. Historic examples include:

a) Communion

b) Communes

c) Community work

d) Contemplation

e) Meditation

f) Enjoying the outdoors

g) Enjoying the indoors

h) Prayer

i) Worship[118]

Conclusion:

The list of ways to commune with your God is long and only limited by the boundaries you create. I know it’s going to cause controversy, but I’m a big believer in the merits of becoming a communist[119] with God!

Question 46: Can prayers be answered?

Many faiths subscribe to prayer, or something like it, as a meaningful way to connect with God. Since the first prayer was uttered, a good portion of them have contained requests for God to act in a favorable manner towards the person praying or some event, animal, human or issue they care about. Religious texts include many stories of God aiding her favored few to destroy cities, gain food when in need, cure blindness and various other ailments.

Assuming these stories have some basis in fact, it would seem self-evident that prayers can be answered. However, I think the nature of the answer may be impacted by conflicting factors. To explore this further, I’ve identified seven basic types of prayer:

1. I appreciate you.

2. I need a deep insight.

3. Let’s make a deal.

4. Could you help me out here?

5. How about you do the work?

6. Could you help someone else out?

7. Mountain moving.

There’s no scientific process or statistical analysis to support these groupings but you’ll probably recognize a few of them. I suspect whether each of these prayers are answered depends on three key factors:

a) Who’s the beneficiary?

b) How much do you want it?

c) What impact will it have on JOE and RUTH?

The evolution of living beings started with an unthinking commitment by one living entity to survive, expanded to trying to perpetuate families and has now expanded to humans caring about their broader communities, nations and, on occasion, humanity itself. Asking for something for others is a sign we’ve “evolved” beyond the basic “survival of the fittest” mentality and probably a joy for God to hear[120].

Whether you believe in God or not, there’s no question that on a daily basis, people believe their deity has positively impacted their lives, and show their appreciation by thanking their God. Often the values they accumulate via their association with their God lead them to do great things in their community – these selfless acts are often the answer to someone else’s prayer.

It’s quite possible the answering of prayers, like many forms of communication, is a two-way street. God might hear my selfish request for lottery riches, and even consider influencing the fall of the numbers, but if I don’t buy a ticket I’ve failed to uphold my end of the bargain. When it comes to prayer my God is a stickler for the rule:

“God helps those who help themselves.”

If you pray to become an astronaut, but make a weak effort at school and skip Space Camp to spend summer holidays picking your nose, your commitment doesn’t merit any assistance from God. However, if you commit to the task, she might place a mentor within your reach or have a NASA official move in down the street – who knows?

So, for a prayer to be answered, it probably helps if you’re praying for something inherently good, and it’s essential you pull your weight in the exercise. On top of this, the likelihood of a successful outcome has to be significantly influenced by the impact God’s acquiescence would have on JOE and RUTH. I doubt God feels it is her role to influence the process of evolution[121] and any interference with RUTH has to take into account:

a) Any “ripple effects” of the decision

b) Everyone’s right to free will

Conclusion:

My God can answer prayers, but the way they’re answered might not be the way you expect. Many of our prayers probably don’t get answered because they’re:

a. Selfish

b. Not backed by any effort or commitment on our part

c. In conflict with JOE

d. In conflict with RUTH

e. In conflict with free will

This leaves us with:

1. A God who can commune with us as much as we wish, facilitate our success when we make an effort to facilitate ourselves, and occasionally answer a prayer with actions.

2. A world that acts upon us but where we have the opportunity to act upon it

3. A God who cares about our progress but is not so invested we’re coddled or valued above the greater good of the universe

Sounds good to me[122].

If you pray to my God, the conversation is great, the results can be surprising, and you’d better be prepared to take any opportunities it creates.

Question 47: Are there miracles?

The dictionary defines a miracle as:

“An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God[123]”

Many religious texts refer to moments of healing as miracles, Jesus creating wine from water is a typical example, and any sports aficionado can name several “miracle” plays. When you see the definition, it’s fair to say the term might be overused in relation to sporting exploits.

One the most important questions about the “laws of nature” is if we actually know what they are. Is it really written in stone you can’t instantaneously turn water into wine? Who says you can’t be raised from the dead, have your sight restored or walk on water?

Whether it’s virgin birth, manna from heaven or a glorious conquest, any claim to miracle status for these events cannot be substantiated by anything other than myth or a potentially biased historic record[124]. On this basis, we really should be asking:

“Do miracles exist in today’s society?”

The pertinence of this question becomes even more compelling when you consider the magnitude of intellectual and scientific achievement over the last few hundred years. With all of the advanced technology and thought we’ve generated over the last century or so, have we eliminated the existence of miracles?

I don’t think so.

Of course, in today’s appropriately skeptical society, the bar for something to be perceived as a genuine, unadulterated “miracle” is much higher. There are certainly medical moments that give us pause:

a) Tumors shrinking for reasons unknown

b) Extraordinary tales of survival

c) Maternal feats of strength to save children

In the future, all of these may be explained – perhaps we’ll even find some people who are genetically predisposed to “miracles” – but I see limited value in arguing the case as:

1) Belief in miracles may be the explanation for some of these events and I’m not going to mess with that.

2) Until everything is explained, I’ll give God the benefit of the doubt on this one.

3) Some events we observe, say life for example, are so spectacularly improbable, let’s enjoy the “miracle” regardless of its source.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, using the definition we started with, the only way to truly show a miracle has occurred is to:

a) Know the laws of nature completely

b) Identify something as impossible

c) Show it happened

d) Attribute it to God

Our daily lives are punctuated with the results of JOE and RUTH, many of which are highly improbable and may be incorrectly attributed to God.

While I’m not prepared to discount the possibility of miracles occurring, it’s possible the real miracles are when individuals or groups, through commitment and intellect, use their connection with their God to create positive contributions within their society.

Question 48: How do God and morality interact?

Some recent philosophizing has suggested God evolved as a tool to enforce the morals or “rules” of primitive societies through an all-powerful deity. Paralleling this view, many religions argue for their own existence by suggesting God and morality are inextricably entwined – without their God, the whole world would go to pot because no one would act morally – particularly those blasted atheists!

My God is an unmitigated stickler for good, and therefore intimately connected to, and familiar with, moral actions and dilemmas facing us on a daily basis. However, God’s existence, or not, is not a prerequisite for moral behavior as:

a) I’d like to think we’re better than that.

b) There are plenty of believers who have committed atrocious acts throughout history.

c) There are plenty of agnostics and atheists who live upstanding, moral lives without significant reference to God.

d) It is highly irritating when believers claim moral superiority based on their religion’s writings or teachings without testing if they:

i. Are the words and wishes of God

ii. Reflect the greater essence of their own religion

iii. Have merit in the context of what we know about ourselves and those around us

This is not a negative reflection on any religion or moral belief - many lessons from major religions have stood the test of time. However, there are also obscure beliefs and rituals reflecting a historically different level of societal knowledge in need of questioning. Whether it’s stoning adulterers, how long you can grow your hair, or the status of women, believers have an obligation to ask:

1. Is this consistent with what I understand of my religion in its current form?

2. Is this something my God would endorse?

3. Can I justify this moral perspective based on my own moral compass (i.e. beliefs about what’s fair)?

4. Can I make a logical (not couched in emotion or religious precedent) argument why this rule or perspective on morality makes today’s society a better one?

I’m not naïve enough to think all believers will adopt this process, nor arrogant enough to consider this is the only way to a useful conclusion. However, accepting moral values without question has underpinned some of history’s greatest atrocities and shows a laziness in connecting truthfully with God. Morality and God remain inextricably intertwined, but recognizing we have an obligation to expect more than rote learning from ourselves and those around us.

If Gandhi was right and “you can judge a society by how they treat their weakest members,” a pessimist might argue that we haven’t made much progress. However, when enough people questioned the status quo, we saw significant progress on moral issues as important as:

a) Slavery

b) Women’s rights

c) Racial equality

d) Human rights

Conclusion:

It’s hard to find anyone arguing we have reached a utopian peak in the morals of humanity. My God has a role to play in helping me get closer to the right answer, but I suspect she also expects a concerted effort from me and evolutionary contributions from JOE and RUTH. I would be very surprised if God feels useful moral reflection and insight can only come from believers, or that non-believers are inherently morally bankrupt.

Question 49: How do we get to heaven?

One of the great rewards of religious belief is the opportunity to go to heaven. Whether it is an opportunity to live in your own mansion near God’s, some sort of sexual smorgasbord or simply a place of perfection and contentment, it creates an incentive to act in a manner consistent with God’s wishes. Among the big hitters of religion, the primary qualification for entry into heaven seems to be… being a card-carrying member.

If heaven does exist, the rules of entry may be a little more flexible than some believers might have us think. If the qualifications for entry into heaven are based on “membership,” this implies my God of integrity and goodwill values a little ego boost over a merit-based system. Based on the various high profile admissions by religious leaders and institutions in recent times, there’ll be numerous adulterers, pedophiles, drug addicts and embezzlers getting through the pearly gates while good people who picked no religion or the wrong religion wait outside, head downstairs or simply fade to nothing. In addition, any other beings as intelligent, or God forbid, more intelligent than us, would be excluded simply due to their location in the universe and genetic make-up – this seems a little hard to swallow – particularly if you’re a Gorgon on planet Nebula with an IQ of 378.

If I’m against a “membership”-driven entry to heaven, I’m left with an afterlife where entry is based on merit, or simply open to all life forms with the capacity to access it.

It’s possible our own lack of self-esteem drives belief in the “membership” strategy for entering heaven – we knew a merit based system would kick most of us to the curb and settled for a less taxing process. It also allows forgiveness of our ancestors for small indiscretions like:

a) Slavery

b) Suppression of women

c) The occasional war or genocide

d) Racism and segregation

A meritocracy would probably see a few less felons make it into heaven but how would God separate the “wheat from the chaff”:

1. Would there be a certain number of sins before you were excluded?

2. Would there be a ranking system of sins where starting a war is a regarded as slightly worse than picking your nose in public?

3. If you didn’t know about heaven, would your good deeds be worth more than those of people just trying to get on God’s good side?

It’s definitely tempting to believe there is a system for weeding out the ingrates who scratched your car, cut you off in traffic or teased you in school, but the reality may be significantly less selective. In addition, instead of being a utopian boondoggle, it’s not out of the question the afterlife could be imperfect, and merely a continuation of our lives in a completely different realm.

Not to belabor the point, but the other issue with a merit based approach to the hereafter is the uneven playing field. What happens if you:

1. Die before you get to prove you’re genuinely good or evil?

2. Don’t have the mental capacity to connect with God[125]?

The volume of variables putting large portions of the planet’s population at a fundamental disadvantage seems at odds with a caring deity. Similarly, the oft-presented view of hell if you don’t make the grade seems a little inconsistent as well – you get it wrong for less than a hundred years and are banished to eternal misery? Even the concept of a good performance over a few decades getting you into nirvana seems overly generous on God’s part – shouldn’t there be a few more hoops to jump through?

Conclusion:

If there is a heaven, the rules of entry may be significantly different to our expectations and it may not be as described. The afterlife may just be a continuation of our lives in a different form. It’s probably not the end of our education punctuated with a diploma and a cushy seat in the fluffiest clouds. It’s an opportunity to better understand ourselves and continue to connect with God. One thing is certain, if we live our lives only pursuing a glorious time in the afterworld, we might be missing out on the glory before us.

Question 50: Does God uphold the laws of the land?

Although this may be a relatively easy question to answer, it’s important to address as it reminds us:

a) We’re merely one point in a multi-billion year history

b) How custom and society mould our thinking while we’re not watching

c) What other people tell us is the “word of God” should always be tested against our own personal understanding of our God

History is littered with examples of historic assumptions resulting in laws or dictates which most, many or all people would now reject. Even today we see moments where the law of the land, whether influenced by religious belief or not, seems in distinct contrast to what a fair and just God would support. For example,

a) A woman who is raped should not be stoned for adultery.

b) A child should not be married.

c) A woman should not be denied education purely due to her sex.

d) Two people who love each other should be allowed to marry.

You are entitled to your own opinions on these issues, and you could definitely argue the examples given are influenced by my personal beliefs and experiences. While these represent a small sampling of laws influenced by history and religion, if you see any as inconsistent with the values of your God, it should act as a flag for your dissent. If leaders of your religion are arguing for this law, it’s possible they have misinterpreted the wishes of your God. If it can happen once, it can happen again – history and our religious advisors can be fallible[126].

Unconvinced? If you’re a believer, has your religion or its leaders ever tolerated or endorsed slavery, racism, the inequality of women, child molestation, regal or caliphate misconduct, religious intolerance, torture, religious war, the occasional raping and pillaging or forced removal of children from their parents? If so:

1. You’re not alone.

2. There’s an excellent chance it was, or is, wrong.

3. It could happen again.

The endorsement of fundamentally bad acts by religious leaders is not an indictment of their religion or God – it’s a reflection of their failure to create a genuine connection to God on the issue due to the time, assumptions and society they lived in.

As a continuing work in progress, we should never assume the laws of the land guarantee justice or reflect the morality of our God. History shows the legal system has been wrong before. Only by people genuinely testing their own beliefs, and then choosing to stand up for what they believe is right, can we continue to progress to a better alignment between human justice and God’s justice.

Conclusion:

If the law is just, God will endorse it. If the law is unjust, God has probably been cajoling us to get it right for some time. She’ll keep offering her opinion until someone listens, stands up and makes it right.

Question 51: Is this book blasphemy?

When looking for a definition of blasphemy, the first I found was:

“A contemptuous or profane act, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity[127]”

In an alternate meaning, the word “irreverent” is used in relation to the act or writing in question. I would hope “contemptuous” would not be applicable to my musings on God but “irreverent,” and many might argue “irrelevant,” might be closer to the mark. And therein lies the rub – regardless of my intent, blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder.

While I’d like to consider this book an opinionated perspective laced with a hearty recognition that I have no authority to speak on behalf of anyone’s God, those who choose to be offended, will be. This seemingly primal need to be insulted by any contrarian thought, questioning of the status quo or relatively innocuous act is a disturbing trend in our society. Every individual has the right to be offended, but shouldn’t seek out offense in corners where it is clearly not intended. In the case of this book, that would be every page.

While I have no intent of causing offense, it’s almost a daily occurrence to see someone deeply offended by an innocent remark or act. The most obvious example of this, at the time of writing this book, is the furor surrounding the potential for building a mosque near Ground Zero.

Understandably, relatives of those killed in the 9/11 attacks, and many other people, regard Ground Zero as a “sacred” site. And, given the attacks were conducted by Muslims, there is a natural temptation to find the suggestion of a Muslim temple near the site as potentially provocative. However, I would expect any offense to be fleeting, as radical Muslim terrorists are no more representative of Islam than pedophilic priests are of the Catholic faith. If we choose to punish an entire faith or belief system for the acts of a few heretics, we will all be found wanting. Stealing from a well-known religious figure – “He whose fellow believers have not sinned may throw the first stone.”

Perhaps a more useful and effective assessment of whether words or an act constitute blasphemy might be to consider intent. For example, if evidence came forth the people running the mosque:

1. Had specific ties to radical Islam or were intending to create a terrorist haven OR

2. Chose the site with the deliberate intention of besmirching the memory of those killed in 9/11,

it would seem fair to conclude this was a contemptuous act designed to sully what is considered by many to be hallowed ground. In the absence of such evidence, the need to be offended should not overwhelm any commitment we have to freedom of religion and speech.

Similarly, it is not out of the question some readers of this book will find it offensive and potentially blasphemous – while this is not my intent, these readers should consider the following:

a) Putting the book down and not reading it will limit your exposure to any blasphemy you might encounter.

b) I don’t claim to be right, merely the right to question my God and any rituals, morals or beliefs associated with her.

c) If you have an intelligent argument for a modification or repudiation of any of my thoughts, I welcome it with open arms.

d) If you have an argument based on your interpretation of your holy text(s), I’m interested but unlikely to be convinced.

e) If you have an argument based on your righteousness and my lack thereof, my hearing is likely to become impaired.

f) If you need to resort to name-calling or worse, you should probably question your own belief system thoroughly before addressing mine.

Conclusion:

This book may be blasphemy for some, but I hope it is inspiration for others.

Question 52: What would God feel about our use of creation?

If I haven’t made it clear already, we need to reassess our place in creation. It is possible God created the universe purely for our entertainment. However, there’s also evidence to suggest

1) We’re not the center of the cosmos

2) We may not be the highest evolutionary point in the universe

3) Our exclusive right to God and her creation have been self-appointed.

Given our failure to transport ourselves past our lunar neighbor, the question at hand is really how God might feel about our use and/or abuse of the Earth. If the planet was created purely for our gratification, I’d still expect God to hope humanity would respect the intrinsic value of our spaceship and recognize it is not an infinite resource. This hope would be similar to a parent giving a child a new toy:

a) If the child simply breaks it out of malice or lack of care, it won’t be getting a new one anytime soon.

b) If the child fails to care for it properly, it won’t be getting a new one anytime soon.

c) If the child fails to share the toy properly with other children, it may be taken away.

This analogy could head in all sorts of fun directions but you get the point – whether Earth was created for us or we inherited it via JOE – there’s an implicit covenant to recognize our planet’s health is inextricably linked to our own.

In the last two thousand years, less than an evolutionary blink of the eye, we have gone from being acted upon by all of the RUTHian forces of our globe to actively acting against both good and bad aspects of RUTH. If we’ve reached the point in the evolutionary process where we can push back against the vagaries of RUTH, and have the technology to influence JOE, we should probably recognize:

a) “With great power comes great responsibility[128].”

b) We might be smart enough to make a change but not smart enough to handle the consequences.

c) You should never poo where you eat[129].

Whether we like it or not, we are intelligent enough to be expected to take on a considerate management role for the planet, and should care enough for our children to leave Earth in better condition than it was handed to us. My God would support this perspective as:

1. It shows this generation values the rights and opportunities of the next generation.

2. It suggests we might care, if only fleetingly, about the other occupants of this celestial oasis.

3. By improving our planet, and our interaction with it, we create the opportunity for evolving to a more transcendent state.

Alternatively, we could assume this orb is ours to plunder and live with minimal respect for the opportunity given to us, and fritter away our children’s inheritance. While it’s hard to believe humans could be so short-sighted, flags for such a situation would be things like:

a) Corporations being allowed to create profitable products whose overall negative impact on the environment or society is not accounted for in their pricing.

b) Indiscriminate polluting of air and water systems without meaningful consequences for the people or organizations doing it

c) Significant climate change generated by our activities on the planet being viewed as a curiosity by major governments unable to act decisively until the problem potentially becomes too massive to solve

Until we see these issues, I’m sure we have no reason for concern and God is relatively satisfied with how it’s all going.

Conclusion:

Our lack of “carte blanche” when it comes to use of the planet will be revisited later – in the meantime, consider this a heads up!

Question 53: Is God in hiding?

Sightings of God still remain relatively rare, even when compared to Elvis or Michael Jackson. With this as our backdrop, the obvious question has to be “Why?” Among the more popular propositions are:

a) God doesn’t exist.

b) God showing herself would overwhelm a mere mortal and therefore shouldn’t be tried at home.

c) It would remove the need for faith and belief.

d) God can’t show herself in a form we could comprehend.

For the creationists who argue for a world less than 10,000 years old, this creates another dilemma – what on Earth[130] are all of these fossils doing here? Scientists have established through thoroughly reviewed analysis and logic fossils suggesting our planet is billions of years old. There are really only two explanations for this:

1) The fossils are the historic relics the scientists suggest and offer decent evidence for the proposed timelines and lifeforms.

2) God made all of this up to hide from humanity and lead us astray.

If the second choice is indeed the answer, God seems overly concerned with anonymity. In addition, just as a God who created the universe for mankind probably did several billion times more work than was necessary, any God who put fossil records in the ground as a diversion has a pretty sick sense of humor.

Admittedly, if we’re all part of a giant experiment, the experimenter might want us to be unaware of her presence. However, if this is the case, we should probably reconsider our own level of self-importance. We may want to be the most important beings in the universe, but if God’s chosen to hide from us it would tend to suggest:

a) God, the experimenter, may regard us as we regard rats[131].

b) There may be billions of other intelligent organisms out there competing with us for God’s attention.

c) There’s a universe-wide game of hide and seek going on and we’re still stuck in the proverbial cupboard.

Without sounding dramatic, there’s probably a ton a good reasons for God to hide from us – (e.g. the likelihood of us making up incompatible stories about her and then arguing about it, or making up semi-compatible stories and still arguing about it).

If God’s not hiding from us, the limited sightings could quite comfortably be allocated to the “I don’t live in your realm” syndrome – just as we rarely spot Coelacanth[132] at the local beach, God doesn’t seem to physically hang out in our ‘hood. Similarly, and ignoring the “God doesn’t exist” argument, the other analogy might be, like UV rays, God can be all around us without us seeing any physical evidence.

Expanding on the “like UV” (LUV) theory, if you become aware of the effects of UV rays you can ignore it, and get sunburn, or embrace it and benefit from Vitamin D production. If you ignore God you might burn in hell[133], and if you embrace God you may enjoy the positive effects others have.

Conclusion:

Although God hasn’t been on the news for some time, the likelihood she’s hiding is relatively low. We can seek her out mentally at any time - not seeing her is a function of the form she exists in.

PART THREE: WHAT DOES GOD VALUE?

Question 54: Does God value anything at all?

With an entire section of this book dedicated to asking what God values, there’s a decent chance I’m going to conclude God values something. However, getting to what those things might be and why, is easier said than done. In addressing this issue it is important to remember we’re talking about my God, and the answers in this section may not agree with yours. That’s OK – the key is to ask the question, and through your intellect and interaction with your God, come to valid conclusions.

To explore whether my God might value anything, we have to keep in mind her[134] key characteristics:

a) Indestructibility

b) Intellect

c) Integrity

It’s also important to consider my God may or may not be the creator, consider humanity the peak of existence or spend any time in a physical form. In addition, and with the joy of complicating matters, we’ve already identified God’s appreciation of JOE, RUTH and free will.

Not surprisingly, one of the key elements for determining the values God might hold dear is whether there is an afterlife. By suggesting there is some sort of existence after death, the impact of death might be mitigated[135] in our eyes. As we’d no longer be mere mortals, the ability to experience and learn after our physical death would probably alter God’s perspective a little as well.

Lastly, I’ve argued my God would be on the side of the good guys and have a meaningful understanding of the subtleties of value, morals and ethics. Obviously, this will mean my God shares some of my values but probably has them a little better thought out than I do. What this actually translates into, we’ll see…

So where does this leave us? As predicted, I’ve painted myself into a corner and have to admit my God must value something. We’ll discuss the types of things God might value in the following questions, but we should feel confident they will be based on:

a. A hierarchy of evolutionary value (from lowest to highest)

i. Dead stuff

ii. Live stuff

iii. Live stuff with a brain

iv. Live stuff capable of complex thought

v. Transcendent stuff or non-stuff[136]

b. A hierarchy of discerned morality (from lowest to highest)

i. Uninformed & unquestioning beings

ii. Informed & unquestioning beings

iii. Informed & questioning beings

c. A commitment to RUTH and free will

d. Knowing more, and having had a few billion years more contemplation time than us

e. A universal perspective rather than a planetary one

f. The existence of a higher form of life than ourselves (even if it’s only God herself)

g. An underlying commitment to good, integrity and the ongoing progress of the universe

Conclusion:

A God who values nothing has no place being God. If our thoughts have no intrinsic value to the deity, we may as well not exist. Therefore to be worthy of Godhood, she must value us and have underlying principals to guide us. Any being, however powerful, who sees no value in humanity, good or integrity, is not my God. However, further examination of values might generate a few surprises on how it all fits together.

Question 55: Does God value life?

Over the next few thousand years, God will have to confront a few key issues on our behalf. We’ve already seen inklings life probably does exist elsewhere in the cosmos. However, if there’s no life outside of our planet:

1. Any creator of the universe won’t be getting an “intelligent design” award[137] anytime soon.

2. If there are habitable planets for us elsewhere in the universe, why isn’t there already life there?

3. If there aren’t any habitable planets elsewhere in the universe, and God created it, what on Earth was she thinking?

Fortunately, whether you believe life exists outside of our planet is probably not the key to answering the question of God valuing life. If we look at the hierarchy, and the progression from dead stuff to live stuff – God would almost certainly find value in live stuff over dead stuff simply due to the increase in possibilities for interacting with the universe, and the potential for new levels of evolution. When evolution fortuitously created thinking, conscious life-forms, all sorts of opportunities presented themselves.

As physical beings, we don’t know whether there’s another spiritual plane or level of evolution. However, in the context of evolution, it’s reasonable to assume simpler forms of existence are the basis for the more complex. Therefore, all life has the implicit value of potentially leading to something greater than itself.

If God does have affection for the evolutionary process (and she certainly hasn’t impeded it so far), you’d expect to see an unfettered commitment to survival of the fittest (SOTF), until some life form had the audacity to change the odds in its favor[138]. Once a player begins to have the ability to usurp evolution, the focus has to move to a higher standard than SOTF. There are still forces capable of eliminating us[139], but to our knowledge, we are the beings with the greatest understanding and control over our existence, and evolution, to ever exist.

As Earth’s standard bearers in the evolutionary cycle, we’d probably garner some favor from God as the closest to achieving evolution’s next step. However, we may also inherit the responsibility to act with higher standards than beings with no consciousness of the universe or their place in it. If God, or the universe, had the courtesy to let us evolve unfettered, we may need to be similarly respectful of our other terrestrial tenants.

Herein lies the dilemma: in the highly competitive world of evolution it’s broadly accepted that eating other competitors is a standard form of natural selection, and no species owes any credence to any other. However, once you have the intellectual ability to change your own and other species’ evolutionary path, it’s time to set a higher standard of respect for life than SOTF. If you happen to be human, there are two arguments for this:

1) A valuing of life more akin to God’s shows further movement along the evolutionary plane.

2) If you’re not the top of the food chain, at least you have an intellectual argument for your ongoing existence.

At the risk of repeating myself, and Uncle Ben[140], “with greater power comes great responsibility” – having emerged from the perpetual fracas of evolution, it seems appropriate to show ongoing respect to the process, and life in general. Essentially, we’re being asked to be morally superior to dirt, weeds and rats – whether this is realistic is yet to be resolved.

As the top of, and primary influence on, the food chain, it becomes our responsibility to nurture life while balancing the need to sustain ourselves and evolve our societies. This creates a substantial gray area where God’s insights might help.

Conclusion:

Yes, my God values life. However, there is almost certainly a hierarchy (i.e. humans are better than plants) and until SOTF plays no part in our environment or society, death will continue to be part of life.

Question 56: Does God value honesty?

If humans are the most evolved species in the universe, you might think honesty is a trait unique to homo sapiens or the more evolved species on the planet. Unfortunately, our “advancement” may facilitate new heights of dishonesty far more effectively than the cause of honesty.

If we look back through the eons of the universe’s development, I’m fairly confident we’ll find no evidence of:

a) Rocks lying to each other

b) Dinosaurs pretending to be friends with their prey before eating them

c) Ducks telling the more gullible members of their flock to fly North for the winter[141]

While there may have been the occasional zebra who realized instinctively that keeping his brother Zeke between him and any lion would improve his odds, the math associated with survival has always been managed honestly and randomly by JOE and RUTH. As intellect evolved, our ability to manipulate situations to our own benefit increased exponentially, and one of the key methods for doing this is dishonesty.

The brain power required for some of the lies we see in today’s society has to be applauded, whether it’s:

a) Claiming weapons of mass destruction exist in the homes of belligerent but toothless enemies

b) Not knowing your coffee was going to be hot

c) Convincing your closest few thousand friends to participate in your latest Ponzi scheme

The effort involved shows a higher level of commitment than many who came before us. However, what’s fascinating about these cases is some of the instigators might claim they acted in complete sincerity – suggesting the biggest lie might have been to themselves.

Whether my examples seem reasonable to you or not, it’s valid to ask why God might favor honesty over dishonesty – if dishonesty requires more intellectual effort, surely it shows higher thought and should be applauded?

While it’s not out of question God gets the occasional chuckle out of the temerity of some lies, this is surely outweighed by the sheer wastefulness of the process. There may be circumstances where lying might be justified, but doing so purely out of selfishness:

a) Achieves nothing of value, and

b) Leads to mistrust and inaction.

Whether it’s the pursuit of scientific knowledge or spiritual enlightenment, we’ve already established God’s primary existence is in the non-physical realm. If so, lies and misrepresentations inhibit humanity’s ability to perceive creation in the form it really is, or make an honest connection with the omnipotent one. Even lies unrelated to these pursuits stymie our progress by directing our energy to the creation and perpetuation of lies rather than constructive contribution to our knowledge, lives and community.

Conclusion:

If God has integrity as part of her nature, then honesty is surely valuable and a key element of how she interacts with us. This should assure us:

1. God hiding from us, or falsifying evidence needed for our pursuit of the truth, is highly unlikely.

2. When the plans for morality were drawn up, approval of lying for selfish reasons wasn’t contemplated.

3. Honesty can be hard.

For my God, honesty is the best policy and the exceptions are few. Any God not committed truth doesn’t make the cut in my book[142].

Question 57: Does God value love?

Whether it’s romantic love, love of a family member or friend, or simply an expression of a passion for something, love is surely one of the most interesting and perplexing concepts within human society. Evolutionists can probably argue a decent case for the chemical process and articulate the mathematical and survival imperatives making the reason for it clear. However, every day we see evidence love is more than the sum of its parts:

1. Loving marriages lasting well beyond the procreational imperative[143]

2. Sacrifices made by soldiers out of love for their country

3. Advancements due to love of science, art, sport or jellyfish

Love permeates our lives and underpins some of the great achievements and relationships in human history. Where would humanity be if:

1. Shakespeare hadn’t loved to string the occasional word or two together

2. DaVinci or Edison weren’t enthusiastic about inventing stuff

3. Millions of individuals hadn’t loved their God so much that they challenged themselves to achieve great things in her honor

4. Parents had no feelings for their children

5. There wasn’t a decent romantic comedy to take your favorite person to?

Even the various competing religions and philosophies tend to agree, love is pretty cool. Without any empirical data, love in its purest form may be the most powerful force in the universe. Admittedly, this is a pretty sappy hypothesis, but in relationships, work or play, great achievements are almost always driven by someone’s unbridled passion.

Of course, the flip side occurs when love turns to hate or when love is misdirected - love of conning people may bring the individual joy but is probably in conflict with God’s values. Without referring to any reflections on love in the various holy books, the love my God values is:

a) Selfless or pure in intent

b) Constructive, not destructive

c) Committed

d) Sensitive to those it touches

With a 50% divorce rate, it’s fair to say we haven’t quite worked out the subtleties of romantic love. However, this should be a flag for improvement rather than a reason to discard the concept completely. There’s no question we need to examine what might be a great relationship in God’s eyes. It may be measured more by the qualities of the love and honesty surrounding it, rather than any contractual agreements or its length – we’ll examine this more later in this book.

With significant dropout rates, illiteracy and unemployment across the planet, our societies are failing many individuals who are searching for their passion through employment or activity[144]. This failure implicitly limits the progress of humanity because we’re not using the resources we’ve been given as effectively as we could. Giving each individual a chance to find what they love, and can realistically pursue, is probably a measure of societal success in God’s eyes.

Conclusion:

Love is misunderstood, well supported, hard to articulate, confused with lust, varying in its forms and wonderful. Whether love’s source is a bottle of pheromones purchased on-line, the carry-over effects of the primal instinct to jump everything in sight, something beyond categorization, or a genetic predisposition created for reasons unknown, it easy to see why God would be a strong supporter:

1. Without love, not a lot would get done.

2. Using love well underpins our spiritual, social and worldly achievements.

3. Understanding love and its productive use is probably the second part of the triumvirate of key values and provides the foundation for a meaningful relationship with our God.

Question 58: Does God value evolution?

This topic has been delved into previously within this book, but it’s important to revisit and consider the ramifications of any conclusion. If you don’t believe evolution exists, or wish to subscribe to a theory measuring the universe’s existence in thousands of years, stick with us because…

Regardless of when the macrocosm began, there’s strong evidence for an evolution of some sorts – whether it’s Darwinian, societal, cultural, religious, moral or some other categorization, it’s reasonable to suggest the society we live in is an improvement on what we started with as:

a) We kill each other in much more efficient ways.

b) We have tangible and tested explanations for much more of our surrounding environment.

c) The concepts of human rights, sexual equality, racial equality, justice and other imperatives are discussed openly in many societies[145].

d) We have expanded the reach of our understanding outwards into space and inwards to a sub-atomic level.

e) There’s a McDonald’s restaurant in every corner of the planet.

f) The weather is much warmer.

Some of our progress being perceived negatively is one of the realities of moving forward – sometimes valuable items are lost or left behind as the process unfolds. However, if our progress to conscious, cerebral beings was a turning point in our relationship with God, the scientific and intellectual advances we’ve made create even more groundwork. We can debate the gaps we’ve created or left in the course of our history, and this is indeed worthy of further reflection, but the reality is…

“Our best is better, our worst probably just as bad.”

Our failure to bring everyone along for the ride implies:

1. Humanity still hasn’t fully divorced itself from SOTF[146] as the underlying rule of existence.

2. Our definition of community hasn’t expanded enough to encompass all people.

3. The benefits of scientific and economic progress are often distributed along individual, corporate or national lines, failing to facilitate the progress of everyone equally.

If we believe a relationship with God is available to us, offering a glimpse of something beyond a mortal existence, our capacity to commune with God has to be the fundamental measure of success (both in our eyes and those of our God). If evolution or intellectual progress brings this opportunity closer, it has to be valued by God.

While the inexorable power of evolution has the ability to move us closer to God, we’ve now taken it upon ourselves to usurp evolution – this creates new moral, intellectual and philosophical hurdles for us to examine. Societal introspection might applaud the progress we’ve made on equality and human rights while questioning the merits of finding inventive ways of “offing” ones foes. As we move forward, my God would expect vigorous debate and scrutiny of the scientific and philosophical advances we create.

Conclusion:

Yes, my God values evolution and progress creating the potential for a deeper relationship with humanity. On this basis, any characteristic (e.g. greater intelligence, spirituality or understanding of the universe) with this effect, whether it’s generated by JOE or our manipulation of genetics, has to be assessed in that light. Similarly, we have a responsibility to ensure we don’t use our ability to speed up evolution in a manner infringing on the rights of other species[147] or inhibiting their ability to continue along the evolutionary continuum.

“If I can’t evolve, what hope do I have?”

Question 59: Does God value blind faith?

Blind faith is belief without true understanding, perception or discrimination[148]. In the context of God, blind faith means accepting something as truth because:

a) God said so[149]

b) God’s representative on Earth said so

c) Someone you know and trust said so

d) Someone whose only defining qualification is adherence to your beliefs said so

e) Someone whose qualifications were never investigated said so

Consider these following scenarios:

1. When you tell a car salesman you’d like a red car, he turns to you and states “No, fuchsia is definitely your color.”

2. A dear friend approaches you with “sure-fire” get-rich scheme and when you ask how it works she says “Don’t worry, I’ll handle that.”

3. You catch a friend’s partner kissing someone else passionately and they say “It’s not what you think.”

If you’d take each of these individuals on their word, you’re probably a great candidate for blind faith. However, if you feel one or more of these situations might deserve further investigation or deeper reflection, you might begin to see where I’m coming from.

If our relationship with God is the most important one in our lives, or at least in the top ten, doesn’t it deserve some intellectual rigor and cogitation? If we won’t accept someone selling us something we don’t want, don’t understand, or easily refutable, why should we let others tell us about our God without committed enquiry?

“Faith without thought risks folly.”

Obviously, the level of interest, interaction and inquiry a person experiences with their individual God is a personal decision. As you may have surmised, I suspect God expects us to go a little further than just working out her name. I believe individuals who identify their God and then allow their belief systems to be driven unquestioningly by the doctrine of the particular faith are letting down:

a) Their God

b) Their Faith

c) Themselves

This opinion does not require the individual’s questioning of their “religious environment” (i.e. historic, cultural, doctrine, etc.) to result in any modification of their beliefs, values or actions - merely justification by reasoned introspection and reflection.

Similarly, the expectation of a little thinking on the part of any believers is not intended to diminish their commitment, loyalty or fidelity to their God. Adding deliberation to the process of generating or reinforcing faith should be reassuring to God and any believers because:

1. Believers can embrace a better understanding their beliefs.

2. Believers can take personal responsibility for their actions based on their considered beliefs rather than blaming God for any dubious actions.

3. God gets followers who genuinely believe in their values rather simply spouting the “company line.”

Conclusion:

For religions or faiths with beginnings in times where slaves were acceptable, women were second-class citizens, and non-believers were no better than animals, there’s an opportunity to reconsider the interpretations of what’s right and wrong. For newer faiths there’s still a chance to consider the merits of their individual values and beliefs. The diversity of positions on numerous issues suggests intelligent people can differ on important moral and value-based topics after having genuinely explored their elements. My God doesn’t expect everyone to come to the same conclusion on every question, but she does value faith complemented by reason.

Question 60: Does God value potential or performance?

This may seem like a dubious question in the context of all we’ve discussed so far. However, it deserves some attention because it might:

a) Provide some useful relativity for other discussions

b) Give some perspective on what’s truly valuable to God

However you perceive the beginning of the universe, there seems to be a general consensus that it started with a spectacular volume of dead stuff[150]. Whether the building blocks were created by God or exploded onto the scene[151], our universe began without a shred of life – lots of potential, not much else.

Essentially, this reinforces that each sub-atomic particle has the potential to participate in the existence of a living, conscious or transcendent being. Even more exciting, it can be recycled to do it again – not only is there potential, but cycles within the universe mean the opportunity is repeated in virtual perpetuity.

This omnipresent potential makes me believe God would have great affection for the capacity within each atom. However, given this power permeates the universe, I can also see God saying:

“Potential, smotential!”

If everything has the same underlying possibilities, it’s a bit like asking a billionaire whether they value a dollar – they might, but probably not as much as someone who only has one.

This analogy can be applied to humans, or other life forms. Every living entity in the universe has the capability of facilitating an important or useful evolutionary change. This underlying gift appears randomly and implicitly suggests diversity and abundance are key factors in ongoing success. Even with humanity’s newfound ability to manipulate the course of the transformation, we should probably maintain a healthy respect for the subtle power of evolution on Earth and elsewhere in the universe.

As individuals, we have a role to play in humanity’s evolutionary cycle and should respect the potential in ourselves and the other six billion or so contenders. However, any God worth their salt would be committed to seeing us actively deliver on our potential and beyond.

Apathetic participants in life throw themselves at the mercy of the most basic rule of the universe – Survival of the Fittest (SOTF)[152]. Even with the cognitive advantage we have inherited, allowing the universe to act upon us without meaningful pushback relegates our contribution to existence alone.

In the context of a multi-billion year old cosmos, our existence can only be regarded as an evolutionary blip unless we continue to evolve:

a) Wisdom

b) Integrity

c) Spirituality

d) Humanity

Trying to justify these four focuses in the next two paragraphs would be a pointless exercise. However, whatever paths humanity decides to pursue, there is a fundamental question of whether we choose to do it together or simply apply our own version of SOTF. While our concepts of love, honesty, justice and integrity continue to evolve, they may also mark the beginnings of a society measuring itself through values not articulated clearly in nature.

Conclusion:

Evolution is crucial part of God’s process. In assessing our progress, it’s quite possible God would look at individuals and society using some of the values we hold dear. Achievement is valued over potential as it adds another layer to the existing baseline. However, in determining what achievement really means to God, we have to consider some of our measures of success may have no value whatsoever.

Question 61: Does God value time?

Part of the entertainment of writing these questions is when you realize the answer may not be what you think it is. My immediate reaction was, “of course God values time!” But further contemplation makes me think the answer isn’t quite as straightforward. There are a few things complicating God’s interaction with time:

a) God’s immortal

b) We don’t know if God perceives time in the same way we do[153]

Knowing you’re around for eternity probably has some major upsides:

1. If someone misses your birthday you know there’ll be another one

2. Significantly reduced health care costs

3. You can let the “Honey-Do” list grow longer, knowing you’ll eventually get around to it

Whether the universe is billions or thousands of years old, God has shown she’s either very, very patient or has no sense of urgency whatsoever. Even if all of the popular messiahs and prophets are in fact the “real deal,” sending one every 500 years shows little compulsion to get the job done in a timely manner. Similarly, if society is actually getting worse not better, as some pundits claim, why not get on with the end game?

Realizing God might not value something I do was a revelation[154] – we don’t have to agree on everything to have a relationship! With this insight comes another thought – maybe God values moments rather than time….

The simplest way to explain this theory is to look at our own lives – there are moments of extreme joy, great loss, achievement, emotion, sleep, boredom, etc. When interacting with our universe, God probably has similar moments. However, she has the equivalent of infinite cable channels – some with great moments, others with grass growing, rocks eroding or advanced species applying SOTF when they could be working in unison[155].

While it’s hard to argue an immortal would value time the same way we mortals would, there’s a compelling case for God valuing each moment on a similar scale. If God cares about us at all, moments when we experience the highs and lows of existence may be just as important to our God as they are to us. Our moments of boredom or inactivity will probably find God wanting to change the channel.

The only conclusion we can draw is that God will value our time only as much as we do. Just as every physical entity has implicit potential, every moment we exist has an inherit opportunity to take the most from it. To quote one popular musician:

“It’s in the way that you use it[156].”

It’s not realistic to expect every instant of our lives to be an emotional or attainment high - there will be mundane, unhappy, wasted time in every life. However, the more we realize or exceed our potential, the more God will value the time we spend doing so.

Taking this concept further, you could argue people who are forced to live lives focused on survival have a disadvantage compared to more fortunate individuals. This could be due to having no time to deeply contemplate one’s deity, or limited access to technology, or lacking the education needed to contribute to personal or societal connections with God[157]. However, the beauty of courage, persistence, honesty, integrity, love and sacrifice in these circumstances is unlikely to be lost on God. Given the additional challenge implicit in subsistence lifestyles, perhaps a societal commitment to fundamental floors on nutrition, education and health would allow a better relationship with God.

Conclusion:

Time is one giant ball of potential. As with any potential, God appreciates the opportunity, but is more excited about the results. God will value time when it encompasses notable moments of achievement, emotion or other value.

Question 62: Does God value monuments to her greatness?

Among the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World were at least four[158] architectural gems designed to acknowledge the coolness of a particular God or set of Gods. In the 21st century, the majesty of religious buildings like the Sistine Chapel, Angkor Wat, the Grand Mosque or the Great Synagogue of Florence stand as monuments to different religions’ desire to acknowledge, worship and/or proclaim their God’s greatness. Some religions seem more prone to iconic statues and buildings with opulence or arguable functionality, but the premise remains the same – how would a God, who’s already been slated as lacking in arrogance, feel about these edifices?

To the degree structures of this nature can inspire believers to greater heights, give them a place to connect meaningfully with God or create a feeling of community, God is likely to be pleased with them. However, given my God’s supposed humility, opulent structures that have little purpose are likely to receive a less enthusiastic reception.

If you want to please God, the best strategy is probably to give her what she wants:

1. Deeper, more advanced contemplations and discussions

2. Acts of extreme courage, integrity or insight

3. Achievements to catapult humanity forward

4. Moments filled with deep emotion

5. Dinner with Angelina Jolie[159]

Conclusion:

Structures built in God’s honor are probably not much more than trophies unless they contribute to the communities they’re built in. It’s possible God regards the greatest monuments as the moments of selflessness, philanthropy, rule breaking or invention that carry humanity to new frontiers.

Question 63: Does God value wealth?

Some religious leaders have suggested God has a vested interest in the wealth her followers attain. While God’s representatives on Earth, whoever they may be, probably would have an advantage through accumulated riches, the existence of prosperous Hindus, Muslims, Christians, atheists, Communists and people with other affiliations, tends to suggest either everyone’s right, or God’s not very selective. I’m leaning towards the latter and prepared to take it one step further – it’s unlikely God gives two hoots.

While this might come as a disappointment to the spectacularly rich among us, it shouldn’t. God’s failure to value affluence is not an indictment so much as a definitive statement of apathy. There are several reasons why this indifference to the size of your wallet might exist:

1. You can’t take it with you.

2. It has no value anywhere else in the universe.

3. It doesn’t guarantee you’re any smarter.

4. It doesn’t seem to have much impact on love, honesty, integrity or how funny your jokes are[160].

5. It’s a score not a meaningful measure of achievement.

Some religious texts have suggested having a decent chunk of money will preclude you from God’s good graces, … a dubious concept at best. I’m firmly convinced God has virtually no interest in whether you have a great deal of money or a little. Evidence to support this supposition would be:

a) People of every religious flavor live in poverty.

b) Many religious leaders live relatively frugal lives.

c) The broad forces of JOE and RUTH seem to take on all comers.

d) In general, the richer you are the less religious you are[161].

Apart from a slight inclination toward “the poor shall inherit the Earth[162]” due to the last point, God’s spectacular disinterest recognizes money’s arbitrary value on our planet and inability to be useful in its own right. Money can facilitate great deeds or injustices – the actions of the people using the legal tender will define the value of the moment rather than the amount, type or source of the funds involved.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, money is a currency God doesn’t deal in and doesn’t care about. To the degree it facilitates individuals and communities bettering themselves and seeking out their God, I’m confident God has no qualms about using cash as a tool. At the other end of the spectrum, funds used wastefully or to aid illicit activities are frowned upon because of the effects rather than any underlying problem with money itself.

Question 64: Does God value contribution to universal knowledge?

Whether God champions evolution or simply lets it take its course, this is an implicit endorsement of greater complexity, greater knowledge and higher levels of thought. If God isn’t enamored with this progress, we can put aside any claims to a deeper and more complex connection to God than any other creature or entity in the universe.

As discussed earlier in this book, if we consider the progression from a universe of dead stuff, to the existence of life and then thought, we’ve reached a turning point as profound as the moment life first appeared. We have a physical body producing thoughts able to be transmitted and stored in dead stuff and live stuff. While we remain tenuously tied to our physical world, it’s entirely possible we’ll find a way to store knowledge with no physical form[163]. If God exists, we’ve already found it in the communication we choose to have with her.

If God doesn’t exist, you should think about why you’re reading a book with 100 questions for a non-existent deity. If you’re still on board, you can see how contributing to universal knowledge would be attractive:

a) If God doesn’t know or hasn’t experienced something she’d probably be interested in finding out.

b) If God knows everything, she’d still be thrilled the universe’s most advanced life-form had discovered something new and created an opportunity for a closer relationship.

Universal knowledge can come from understanding the physics of the cosmos, a chemical reaction, an emotion or a moral dilemma. If we are the most advanced beings in the universe, God’s only had a few thousand years to observe the number of ways we can get ourselves in trouble and the multiple ways we can solve the problem or make things worse. After several billion years of watching bacteria evolve, this must be an enticingly rich moment for God’s interaction with all of existence.

Even with six billion participants, it’s highly likely God hasn’t seen every possible combination of human experience. Add our determined inability to live in harmony, and mixed results creating consistent and meaningful relationships with other humans and our God(s), and you can see plenty of room for an even more nuanced understanding of science, relationships, morality and ourselves.

While full comprehension of the vagaries of the physical universe may be eons away, our pursuit of knowledge is slowly edging into the non-physical/spiritual realm. Depending on your source of information, finding the right path in this sphere could result in:

a) Spiritual fulfillment

b) A chance to hang out with God (and ask questions)

c) The opportunity to be judged (and plead forgiveness)

d) Everlasting life

e) Disappointment

While the last option remains an outside chance, there’s fairly good evidence the journey can be enriching in its own right – the billions of people who find meaning in their relationship with their God will attest to it.

Conclusion:

My God is heartily committed to broadening the knowledge available to the inhabitants of the physical universe. Attaining this knowledge, through research or experience, is one of the key contributions we can make as individuals and an important way to deepen our connection to God and our community.

Question 65: Does God value caring for others?

I’ll let you in on a secret – I’d really like the answer to this question to be “Yes.” As I’m writing about my God, there’s a temptation to make caring a prerequisite[164], but we can make a case for caring for others as it:

1. Shows we’ve evolved past the basic SOTF

2. Is unanimously endorsed by all of the major religions

3. Facilitates evolution by broadening the gene pool

Assuming God has any alignment with the beliefs of her followers, the question is more nuanced than the pathetically considered enquiry at the top of this page[165]. A useful answer will address who the “others” are, and what “caring” involves…

One of the great challenges for some religions is their current or past desire to exclude people from qualifying for the basic care and/or rights due to them. This failure has been expressed through slavery, sexual inequality, destroying of native populations or cultures by militarily superior nations, genocide and various other events we should learn from.

These events or cultural maladies represent a failure by the more powerful members of the society to define “others” broadly enough – their “others” was defined to exclude others[166]. If we can get everyone on board for “others” including all people regardless of race, sex, sexual persuasion, age, physical or mental ability, religion, birthplace, … and whatever additional ways we choose to exclude people, we’ll probably be moving toward God’s definition of others.

Regarding all humans as equals and engendering them with basic inalienable rights is not a ground-breaking concept, however poorly it’s been implemented. The really interesting questions come when we consider our place in the food chain and evolutionary hierarchy. If we’re the most evolved beings in the universe, it’s possible God expects us to take some responsibility for stewardship of our planet and all the life forms traveling on it with us. Reasons for God having this expectation may include:

a) Because it’s the right thing to do

b) Maintaining diversity to facilitate evolution

c) Respect for the magnificence of all aspects of the universe might teach us something

d) We’d want it if we weren’t the top of the food chain

While most of our experts don’t expect contact with other intelligent life forms any time soon, if aliens are more intelligent than us, we’d better have some really good reasons for them to show us some mercy – maybe a track record of doing this ourselves would help?

“Caring” may be as simple as concern for another living being or as complex as the ability to understand their perspective. Inevitably, if you truly care, this will lead to action on your part, and often it will be difficult or cost you something you value. Whether the expense is time, money or opportunity, caring for others lifts humanity above the day-to-day SOTF pervasive to the universe. If God didn’t value this, she would be endorsing a Machiavellian societal order demanding a SOTF mentality even upon knowing better. While the history of the universe as we know it emphatically endorses SOTF, this misses one crucial point – as far as we know, we’re the first beings in the entirety of creation to effectively control our own species’ destiny[167] and have the wherewithal to know it.

Conclusion:

Our situation means two things in the cosmos have fundamentally changed:

1. Survival is no longer limited to the physical genetic data stored in our genes – it’s also about ideas, moral frameworks, technologies and other ethereal pursuits.

2. We know we have the choice to create a more meaningful existence based on emotions, opinions, beliefs and a morality we create ourselves and/or with our God.

Caring for others is a crucial step towards the latter.

Question 66: Does God value humility?

Various sayings might proffer your opinion when it comes to humility:

“Pride goeth before destruction, and haughty spirit before a fall[168].”

“It is no great feat to be humble when you are brought low, but to be humble when you are praised is a great and rare attainment[169].”

“Never be haughty to the humble, never be humble to the haughty[170].”

“Pride defeats its own end, by bringing the man who seeks esteem and reverence into contempt.”

“Don’t be humble, you’re not that great[171].”

Unfortunately, none of this gives a particularly useful insight into God’s perspective. If the major religious texts are to be believed, God’s pretty impressed with herself, but as discussed in Question 10 (Is God an Egomaniac), she may have been misquoted. What’s my evidence for this? … Look around you, do you see God:

a) Big-noting herself[172] about anything?

b) Showing off when she performs a miracle?

c) Talking smack to any secondary deities?

If the most powerful being in the universe shows constant humility, it doesn’t leave any of us much room to be talking ourselves up.

While modesty does seem the right course when our relative magnificence is considered, there’s probably still room for a little retrospective reflection on the terms pride, vanity, arrogance and humility. In the quotes at the start of this question, pride gets a bad rap. The definition of pride can vary from a reasonable self-respect to inordinate self-esteem. In the former case, being proud of something is probably a sign you care about it enough to do your best. In the latter case, it’s time to realize – you’re not that great – vanity and arrogance are unbecoming.

Conclusion:

Just as it’s a fine line between pleasure and pain[173], the border between appropriate pride and vanity is probably a moving target. However, humility shows an inner confidence more reflective of God’s actions while self-aggrandizing deeds inevitably are aimed at garnering a greater recognition than the person or their achievement deserved.

My God applauds great acts and people achieving their potential, stands when they deserve such an ovation, sits when the appropriate recognition has been delivered and never allows someone’s self-importance to belittle the acts and achievements of others.

Question 67: Does God value selfishness or selflessness?

You may think this question is a repeat of Question 65, but there’s a significant difference between caring for others and the acts or mindset resulting in selfless acts. Obviously, in a universe driven by SOTF there are really only two approaches:

1. It’s me against the universe, or

2. It’s us against the universe.

If your approach is a single-minded (or completely unconscious) commitment to your own survival, there’s really not much potential for doing things “out of the goodness of your heart.” When your focus is on the survival of your group, it creates the possibility of selfless acts on behalf of the group or members of it. A mother protecting her offspring or bees collecting pollen for the community are simple examples[174].

Once the opportunity for selflessness presents itself, there are really two questions to be answered:

a) What or who do I define as my group?

b) What’s in it for me?

In an age of athletes who put themselves before their team and CEOs who put profits or salary ahead of all other considerations[175], the cult of the individual is alive and well. In addition, the incentive for worldly wealth can motivate individuals to achieve great intellectual, sporting or even spiritual feats. However, for every apparently superlative performance by an individual:

1. There’s probably a supporting structure of selfless or similarly motivated people around them.

2. There’s almost certainly a wealth of competitors whose impetus has some element of unadulterated love for the task, or passion for the journey of achievement.

3. There’s a human being doing all they can to lift their “group” (family, community, etc.) out of survival mode.

This leads to the three truths of the selfishness/achievement game:

1. Selfish people can sometimes achieve great things due to their unimpeded focus or despite themselves.

2. Unselfish people can also achieve great things.

3. Some people don’t get to play.

This leads to the three truths of the selfish/selfless game:

1. There’s a time to be selfish.

2. There’s a time to be unselfish.

3. Everyone should get to play.

From an evolutionary perspective, there are valid arguments for self-serving and unselfish acts contributing to our continuing progression. Similarly, in life, while a completely selfless existence (if that’s possible) may be admirable, it probably needs to be assessed against some other measures like realizing potential and personal fulfillment.

Conclusion:

The balancing act between self-centered actions and generosity is one of the joyful learning experiences we can share with our God. Navigating the pros and cons of particular actions and attitudes doesn’t come with a perfectly plotted map. Every individual has the right to follow his or her own path and see where it leads. The people around them have the right to come to their own conclusions about what a person’s actions say about the individual’s character. Everybody, somebody or nobody may be right.

Question 68: Does God value power?

How much does the most powerful being in the universe value power? As a start, it would be reasonable to assume God fears no one. Similarly, we should probably recognize that if our God is indestructible, no actions by man, or any other being, actually threaten her existence. On this basis, any fears we, or our religious leaders, might have about insults, destruction of property or blasphemy should be viewed in this light.

In the context of most believers’ perceptions of God’s power, any clout attainable by a person on Earth has to be dwarfed by the strength achieved and maintained by God. Whether you’re the President of the United States, the dictator of a third world state or the CEO of a multinational corporation, the consensus among believers seems to be the influence you’ve achieved is inconsequential when compared to God.

While God may not be intimidated by any level of power achievable by humanity, this does not preclude seeing any value in Earthly authority. Attaining influence may not be an end itself, but the progress and good achievable by its judicious use are likely to resonate with God’s value system. In assessing how this value might present itself, it’s probably worth considering the difference between physical and spiritual power.

Physical power might be as simple as an individual’s strength and speed, or as complex as the ability to blow up half the planet at the press of a button. To the degree physical power can influence us towards outcomes reflecting God’s values, I suspect she sees merit in accumulating it. However, as the exercise of power can also facilitate acts of great barbarism or inhumanity, it’s hard to argue it is anything more than a means to an end – the measure of good or bad is in its use, not in the underlying force or authority.

As a primarily non-physical being, it seems logical God’s interest would gravitate towards spiritual power rather than physical. In this context, I’d tend to define spiritual power as the ability to influence minds with great ideas, insights, visions or inspiration. You only have to look as far as your local place of worship to identify the profound effect this authority can have on people’s lives. Similarly, when you consider the most influential figures in human history[176], it’s highly probable they had a large dose of spiritual power regardless of the magnitude of their physical sway.

The importance of spiritual power versus physical has been recognized by religious and secular leaders for some time. Whether it’s a coach trying to inspire their team, a holy person seeking to guide their flock or a political activist try to motivate the masses, winning hearts and minds is the ultimate form of power. Physical power involves the ability to get your way regardless of the resistance; spiritual power is the ability to bring others to share your perceptions. Suggestions God would seek to “win us over” by physical force or intimidation seem inconsistent with my understanding of her – there might be the occasional cajoling, but a true connection to God is a choice.

Conclusion:

To the degree physical power can facilitate or be a catalyst for our progress toward a life appropriately “plugged in[177]” to the almighty, generating[178] this power is something God would endorse. However, due to the nature of God, any effort to be more like her involves the accumulation of spiritual or intellectual power. Spiritual power, understanding or attainment is the gold standard in creating a meaningful connection with God.

Question 69: Does God value diversity?

Having put at least thirty seconds of deep thought into this question can only lead to one conclusion – Yes. While it’s tempting to move on and leave us with the shortest answer to a question so far, I’m prepared to “live on the edge” and suggest some reasons why:

a) If God did create the universe, but doesn’t value diversity, why set it up with a diversity-driven mechanism like evolution?

b) If God didn’t create creation, the spectacular number of organisms generated through evolution led to the first beings able to commune with her[179].

c) Every moment of evolutionary, human and spiritual progress is completely dependent on the existence of diversity.

While there’s probably an entire book in the discussion of diversity of species[180], let’s “cut to the chase” and dissect variety within humanity. Firstly, as pointed out by a U.S. President, “we are all, regardless of race, 99.9% the same[181].” On that basis, any diversity we perceive in human society starts with no more than a 0.1% variance in our genetic make-up. The moment we are born we begin to broaden the diversity quotient based on experiences, but our spectacularly similar starting points should be the final word on racial differences.

Given our inordinate sameness, the diversity of opportunity and experience we encounter is one of the most telling influences on our society’s progress.

Every step we take forward, whether it is spiritual or scientific, is implicitly dependent on a confluence of factors bringing an individual to a particular perspective, conclusion or insight:

1) To have the influence on civil rights he did, Martin Luther King probably needed to be black, eloquent, empathetic and fearless.

2) To express her profound intellectual talents, Marie Curie needed access to education, curiosity, passion for her field and innovative perspectives to get to her new discoveries.

3) To have the opportunity to philosophize as he did, Plato needed to be wealthy, educated[182], insightful and open to new ideas.

You can choose your own examples, religious or otherwise, and I’m confident you’ll come to the same conclusions – shaped by our experiences and genetic predispositions, each person has the potential to move us forward. At the same time, you might argue people of this stature might have found a way to achieve what they did through a different path. This is a valid belief,… and another argument for diversity.

It could even be suggested the only thing able to stop such advances would be a lack of opportunity – you can’t achieve anything momentous if the chance doesn’t exist. While God may value diversity and the potential it creates, the real value comes in the achievements themselves.

If God’s appreciation for diversity were unlimited, it would be a great argument for populating the planet with as many people as possible. However, with billions of people living in poverty and focused on survival alone, we’re not harnessing the existing potential with any efficiency. Until we recognize the importance of providing everyone a basic chance to choose their life path[183], we’ll be achieving less than our existing diversity allows.

Just as an aside, resistance to diversity drove many of the most infamous moments in history. Pick a war, genocide or political kerfuffle and often the spark for the conflict is:

a) A failure to see the other side as human

b) An inability to accept someone else’s perspective may be as valid as your own

c) A focus on differences rather than commonalities

Conclusion:

God values diversity for the opportunities it creates. The economic and social structures on Earth inhibit many people from seizing the chances their different experiences and perspectives might offer. Nurturing the diversity we already have is probably important to God.

Question 70: Does God value tolerance?

There are multiple meanings for “tolerance”, including enduring pain. While this definition may occasionally have some pertinence, let’s focus on:

“sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own[184]”

The reason there is no reference to racial, sexual or other physical differences is because they are non-existent or inconsequential in the eyes of my God. If she is going to make a value judgment about me, it’s going to be on the actions, beliefs and behaviors exhibited, not my physical make-up. Admittedly, this belief may be due to my “letting myself go” since getting married - a technicality.

Humans began their worshipful pursuits by recognizing Gods who embodied forces or things in their environment (e.g. wind, sun, sea, etc.). After some deep contemplation, and over a few thousand years, other Gods were added who embodied emotions like love, or actions like war. A few thousand years ago, someone had an epiphany and decided there was only one God. This immediately or consequently led to the development of the Abrahamic faiths, which are the “big hitters” in today’s God-centric religions. This leads us to a few simple observations:

1. It’s hard to argue humanity’s perception of God hasn’t changed over time – even religious texts record or imply this in their historic reflections.

2. If one of the monotheistic faiths is the “chosen” or “correct” religion, at some stage in history every person on the planet was worshipping the wrong God(s).

Numerous books have recently addressed the issue of the evolution of our thoughts and attributions to our God(s). If this has occurred, the only two conclusions we can reach are:

a) God(s) exists, or

b) God does not exist.

If we believe God exists, there are only four possibilities:

1. One religion has all the answers.

2. More than one religion provides the answers.

3. All religions have the answers.

4. None of our religions have the answers.

Apart from the implied need to thoroughly explore what the questions are, this brings us to a seminal[185] moment. If all of the religions we currently pursue are improvements on, or replacements for, previous belief systems, we’re delicately stating that the relationship with God is complex. At some stage, everyone on Earth had it wrong or only partially correct.

Given the gift of 20-20 hindsight, it seems enormously presumptuous of our generation to assume we have reached the zenith of religious understanding. If there’s room for further development of our relationship with God, the insights might have similar sources to those in the past:

a) An existing religion[186]

b) Societal change[187]

c) A new perspective[188]

Conclusion:

If the evolution of our religious beliefs has been facilitated by a diverse range of sources, and has brought us closer to God, we can only conclude God values tolerance’s ability to facilitate this. Similarly, our acceptance of differing beliefs shows our openness to truly seeking God, and might just be the key to finding her.

Question 71: Does God value persistence?

If you were given the choice of only one specific attribute to bring into this universe, there may be an argument for persistence. While love, honesty and integrity are probably pretty useful, sticking with the task at hand may be the most important behavior for survival and progress.

It only takes a cursory look at the course of evolution to conclude persistence is potentially the key to the whole puzzle. Think back to the time when the first single cell organism came into existence, let’s call it “One”…

One comes into existence and promptly succumbs to the hostile environment or doesn’t have the guts[189] or internal fortitude to create offspring. Welcome to the history of life in the universe…

I hope you enjoyed it.

We’re here, so it didn’t stop there. However, it’s likely our most primitive ancestor wasn’t One, but Three Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred and Sixty-One. It’s even possible the first flourishing life has no connection to the current ecosystem at all. This is the magnitude of persistence needed to get us to this point is awesome.

The entire progression of evolution is driven by the SOTF[190] rule:

“He, she or it, that survives to the last, shall be the winner[191].”

It doesn’t matter whether you view the current evolutionary leaders as examples of the persistence of:

a) Life,

b) DNA,

c) Consciousness, or

d) God’s chosen species.

The common theme is an unconscious or conscious commitment by the evolving entity to persist regardless of the challenges it faces. The endurance of these building blocks is their defining characteristic. This persistence was an asset in the cell vs. cell environment when life began. It is just as important in our current existence, where the survival of ideas, knowledge and the pursuit of transcendent thought seem to be the next frontier.

Persistence’s value to the evolutionary process, pre- or post-SOTF, has to make it extraordinarily valuable to God – it’s the underpinning trait of any gene pool continuing to break new ground it its relationship with her. However, there may be one subtle difference in the post SOTF environment – the life and death of ideas and knowledge may not follow the same simple paths the evolution of biological organisms did.

Call it paranoia[192], but while we’d like to think the best ideas and exemplary knowledge will ultimately win out, there’s always a risk the strongest physical organism[193] will suppress part or all of the non-physical. Resistance to the free expression of alternative thoughts and ideas can be seen in:

a) Totalitarian regimes all over the world and throughout history

b) Communist states limiting or eliminating freedom of religion

c) Cults preserving the ignorance of their followers[194]

d) The Jocks beating up the Dorks

Any society limiting freedom of philosophical and religious expression risks inhibiting the right paths to God and knowledge. Any individual resisting or rejecting concepts without genuine reflection is exposing the fear their own ideas and beliefs don’t have the necessary staying power.

Conclusion:

If spiritual power or enlightenment is the goal, persistence is the path. Whether it is conscious or unconscious, persevering when others have given up is crucial to our continuing growth with and towards God.

Question 72: Does God value admitting you’re wrong?

Good news! I can give an unequivocal, no holds barred, definitive answer to this question:

No.

Actually, I may be wrong.

If you’re one of the few people on this planet who has the gift of admitting your mistakes without hesitation or ego bruising, this shows:

a) Enormous self-discipline

b) Admirable character

c) You’re not me

Fortunately, anyone who is unable to meet your lofty performance has the knowledge that their stubbornness has inevitably led to conflict, frustration and overt (or covert) grumpiness. In contrast, those who can “suck it up” and admit their error seem to be well received when they do.

If the occasional hissy fit or discontent was the only result of such behavior, God would probably view the whole admitting you’re wrong thing with something approximating apathy and move on. Unfortunately, its ability to erode the most endearing of relationships, and grow exponentially, means it deserves a little more attention.

Before we address this, I should emphasize that you have to realize you’re wrong before you can admit to it. This insight can only come from you – it’s not an unpopularity contest where more people disagreeing with you means you’re mistaken. The process is not for the faint of heart – it takes a preparedness to reflect honestly while ignoring the pleadings of your ego and accumulated biases, and addressing the issue at hand with empathy. Not everyone has this capacity.

Being honest with yourself may be harder than it seems. When you tell a lie you make a conscious decision to ignore, embellish or modify the truth. However, when you’re mistaken you may be inhibited by unconscious or previously learned misconceptions – it’s tough work. All of this makes the moment of enlightenment rarer than we might hope, and the opportunity to express this wisdom more daunting.

None of this should diminish the merit of admitting you’re wrong. Given God’s enthusiasm for progress and evolution in our lives, the antagonism and angst created in relationships when someone won’t confess their transgressions is a roadblock. If communication breaks down, there’s very little opportunity for moving forward.

Also, the effect of unrepentant behavior can expand exponentially with the stature of the offender. In today’s media-driven society, where “news” is often an over-reaching response to a celebrity’s comment or action, how often do we see continuing coverage until an appropriate[195] apology is received? Many people would regard the whole exercise a waste of time, and it is. Whether you’re a celebrity or a common plebian – admit your mistake and move on.

If you’re a dictator who rules your nation with an iron fist, the personal need to admit your incompetence is probably not very high. However, we continue to see examples of ineptly managed countries[196], with fundamental economic, social or developmental issues, but no effort by the leadership to change. If you have great power but you can’t admit your mistakes, they begin to magnify and multiply.

Conclusion:

God wants our lives, thoughts and societies to move forward. An inability to admit we’re wrong is a common reason for:

a) Standing still

b) Moving sideways

c) Underachievement

d) Going backward

Question 73: Does God value justice?

Throughout this section, one of the underlying themes has been the fundamental change occurring due to humanity beginning to control its own environment and destiny. Yes, we might all be killed off by a giant asteroid tomorrow, but never before has one species had so much influence over its own future and contemplated concepts like justice.

When your planet is dominated by life forms fighting unconsciously for survival, it’s hard to see how justice is relevant. It might be pertinent if God “sponsored” the successful evolution of the best gene pool, but there’s really no evidence to suggest this happened[197].

Our level of evolution has taken SOTF off the table from a physical perspective and thrown it firmly into the ethereal realm. The fight for supremacy is now a wrestle between ideas, values and concepts in our hearts and minds. If justice can be defined as the victory of good over evil or right over wrong, there are really only two questions:

1. Whose side is God on?

2. Who defines right or wrong?

Fortunately, we’ve already established God is on the side of good for two simple reasons:

1. If she’s not, she’s not my God.

2. Good is the better concept for moving the universe forward[198].

As to who defines right or wrong, there’s an excellent chance God has a more developed perception of the issues than us. On this basis, you could argue this is God’s responsibility alone. However, we face daily questions about justice that can test our understanding of what God would condone, and good people come to vastly different conclusions. This leads us to the three truths about what is just:

1. God knows.

2. Our ideas of justice are inevitably influenced by our upbringing.

a. Polygamists think polygamy is the right path.

b. Terrorists think violent acts in God’s name honor God.

c. Some “right to life” activists believe in killing people to further their cause[199].

3. There may not be an unqualified answer – i.e. the “correct” conclusion may not be definitive or even exist.

Determining God’s perception of justice is not straightforward. As an example, I believe my God regards women as the equal of men in value, intellect and ability to commune with her[200]. This belief is the result of my upbringing, women I have met, and reflection on the issue with and without my God’s input.

For someone who has grown up in a male-dominated society and regarding women as unable to do all men can, the equality of women may seem a ridiculous concept. This is particularly true if this community has reinforced the inequity through teachings and rituals. However, just as I should question all I’ve been conditioned to believe, so should this individual. By peeling back all the doctrine and genuinely asking themselves and their God for truth they may:

a) Come to a different conclusion

b) Reach a modified perspective

c) Reinforce what they already believe

Conclusion:

God values justice – determining what this looks like is one our great challenges. We can only ask every individual to pursue their understanding of justice with integrity and vigor. We won’t all reach the same conclusion, even on matters with seemingly definitive answers, but over time SOTF will apply to our ideas and ideals just as it has to various species throughout history. May the best ideas, knowledge and values win, and justice prevail.

Question 74: Does God value ritual and rules?

From the sacrifice of vestal virgins to the act of kneeling for prayer, throughout history most religions have shown a tendency to create rituals perceived to honor their God(s). Similarly, based on a moral framework, many religions have taken it upon themselves to create rules for life – some of which are general (e.g. Thou shall not kill) and others of which are specific (e.g. no chocolates on the first Thursday of the second month of the first year divisible by 16 in each century)[201].

While the offing of virgins seems to have declined in popularity, many ancient rituals and rules persist. If we believe there are fundamental truths, or our God should be respected, there’s a strong argument for this happening. However, you only have to look at the Old Testament to see hundreds of rituals[202] and rules cast aside by most or all modern day Jews. A quick study of other religions is likely to find a similar turnover of ideas – some standing the test of time and others falling by the wayside (seems sort of evolutionary doesn’t it).

If you subscribe to a religion or belief system where none of the rules or rituals changed throughout its history, there’s a decent chance its history is short or it has a very small following. Whether they like it or not, religious leaders have had to respond to changes in cultural mores and dilemmas created by new technologies and lifestyles. When these changes occur, they might be incremental (e.g. removing a ritual from the act of worship) or profound (e.g. allowing female priests)[203]. Regardless, they represent recognition by the faith’s leaders that acquisition of greater knowledge, and reflection with God on its meaning and implications, may lead us to conclude:

a) What we perceived to be important may not be.

b) Our current perceptions of God’s values are wrong or incomplete.

This brings us back to God’s valuing of ritual and rules. We have already established God’s predisposition to good (Bravo, God!) and if you have a belief in God, I suspect it’s not presumptuous of me to assume you feel she deserves respect. This provides the basis for addressing the two items separately.

Rituals by their nature are designed to show respect for the God in question. Even if my God is not an egomaniac, it’s reasonable to suggest she might value me showing respect in a manner consistent with my beliefs. If I feel eating pork would be disrespectful, the act of choosing not to do so is implicitly respectful, and doesn’t hurt anyone other than the pork farmers (who have already accepted the right of consumers to choose). To this degree, I would expect God to value ritual.

As soon as a religion or believer chooses a ritual destructive in its nature (e.g. animal or human sacrifice, denigrating or belittling others) I believe God would put other values ahead of it. In the battle of values, ritual can only be regarded as brittle when compared to life, honesty, tolerance and other higher concepts.

Rules differentiate themselves from ritual by reaching outside the act of worship and into our interaction with both believers and non-believers. They create a structure for us to address problems and dilemmas as we face them, and are generally driven by the truths we, or our religion, perceive. Their importance to our God will be driven by one factor only – whether they are right.

Conclusion:

Within some religions or belief systems, rules and rituals have an important role in showing respect for God and creating a framework for believers. As with any structure, time can identify the weak points and renovations may have to be made. In some cases, the structure may be so dilapidated it needs to be replaced – the only constant is the need for continual consultation with God.

Question 75: Does God value breaking the rules?

Given some of the points in the previous question, you might think the answer to this one would be something like:

“God values breaking the rules if the rules are wrong.”

And it is…sort of.

The twentieth century saw an absolutely stunning expansion in mankind’s:

a) Creation and adoption of technology

b) Accumulated knowledge

c) Understanding of itself

d) Self-importance

e) Environmental impact

While the last two items probably require discussion later in this book, the first three have moved us profoundly forward. It’s possible the rate of change has reached such an enormous pace that our moral and religious beliefs can’t keep up with the questions, let alone the answers. However, whether this is true or not, the consciously “evolved” technologies, knowledge and skill sets of the last hundred years would have taken millennia if we left it to JOE or RUTH[204]. Knowledge seekers and rule breakers achieved this progress, and I believe the latter hold a special place in God’s heart.

My God’s endorsement of the troublemakers has to be viewed in light of the rules being broken. This is not an exercise in immorality, it’s an approval of those prepared to question the status quo – scientific, religious or philosophical. Ultimately, it recognizes the tendency for momentous change to follow in the footsteps of thinkers who can usurp the word “never.”

At some stage in recent history, a rule breaker heard the following:

a) Humans will never fly.

b) If you haven’t got a solution after five hundred tries, you never will.

c) A black person will never sit at the front of the bus.

d) Women will never lead nations.

e) Your theory will never work.

f) Don’t waste your time, it will never happen.

When they chose to ignore the popular thinking of the time, or to improve on it, these alternate thinkers opened up possibilities others couldn’t fathom.

If you’re unconvinced of the importance of rule breakers, it might be worth considering these candidates:

- A Jewish carpenter who chose to endorse some of the existing tenets of his religion and reinvent others

- An Arab orphan who saw value in Christian and Jewish teachings but chose to provide his God’s own perspective

- A child adopted into the Egyptian royal family who gave his people ten commandments[205] he would never have received without a differing perspective on God to those around him

There are rules and laws verging on immutable (e.g. do not kill for your own entertainment, respect other people’s rights, try not to start wars by mistake, etc.), while others are just waiting for the right insight to fine tune them or show them to be lacking.

The only way to find the rules needing to be broken is to assume nothing and give the rule breakers a chance to state their case. If you value your religion and its members, surely the most valuable gift you can give it is the confidence that its rules and beliefs have been, and will be, tested and retested and continuously found to be valid.

Conclusion:

Belief systems survive and flourish when they are the “fittest.” Rule breakers have made their mark in every major religion and will continue to do so as we move forward. God will be cheering them on.

Question 76: Does God value integrity?

With honesty already ensconced as a key component of my God’s value system and integrity established as one of the three essentials to be my God, it may seem redundant to address this question. However, while the answer may be self-evident, the reasons why God might value this attribute in us, and its subtleties when compared to honesty, are worthy of exploration.

An online dictionary defines integrity as:

1) Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

2) The state of being unimpaired; soundness.

3) The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness[206].

If my God values things like love, life and honesty, the requirement for integrity ensures these values are applied in a manner consistent with the rules that evolve from this moral framework. It’s one thing to see merit in honesty, another to apply it unfalteringly.

When religious figures or believers fail to uphold the beliefs they purport to hold, this is a reflection on the individual, not the God they subscribe to. However, on the assumption we have divined the correct morality from our God, each time we fail to show the required integrity we probably:

a) Fall short of a standard God might hope for us

b) Inhibit our own personal journey

c) Screw up someone else’s day

Conclusion:

If I expect integrity from my God, it’s only reasonable she anticipates the same from me. Believing in particular values without having the personal integrity to implement them creates a significant gap in our credibility with ourselves, God and anyone else who finds out. We have the right to be human and imperfect, but integrity is crucial to meaningful progress.

Question 77: Does God value miscellaneous items?

This question should be a reminder to all readers:

1) This book is a start, not a finish.

2) I’m too disorganized to get it right the first time[207].

3) God can’t be summed up in 100 Questions[208].

There are numerous concepts, ideals and values I could imagine my God valuing – things like humor, beauty, imagination, innovation, silence[209], music, charity, empathy, experience, inventiveness, courage, loyalty, patience, etc.

The values we’ve reviewed have been a mix of the most important for my God and those with the misfortune to cross my path when I was in a contemplative mode. I make no guarantees of having addressed all of the values pertinent to my God and may not have touched upon any applicable to yours[210]. Future versions of this book may demote some questions and promote others. The next book may have to be called “100 More Relevant Questions for God.”

Ultimately, each individual has to ask themselves what’s important to their God and/or defines their relationship with the big Kahuna. As you’ll see later in the book, many of the values we’ve pondered assist in understanding the answers to key questions in the next section.

Conclusion:

There’s much more to my God’s value system than can be addressed in twenty or so questions. Any failure to identify key values can be attributed to my ineptitude and should not reflect on God herself. I’ll be seeking further clarification in the future and hope you do too.

PART FOUR: SO WHAT?

(WHERE’S THIS LEAD US?)

Who knows where you’re at if you’ve made it this far. I’m hoping you’ve found some pearls of wisdom, disagreed vehemently on some issues and sent me polite e-mails to enlighten me on certain points. If your God’s values and attributes look vaguely like mine, this section should provide room for some healthy discussion. If your God has no resemblance to my inferences, this part of the book should get you totally incensed. If this is the case, please take a cold shower and send me your articulate rebuttals and I’ll incorporate any gems into the RRR[211] version.

The aim of this part of the book is to reflect on what’s been identified so far and then determine the implications this might have for how we live our daily lives. With this in mind, let’s review what I’ve concluded so far (you can cross out any items you disagree with and monitor the implications as we move forward):

a) God is powerful but tends to keep her nose out of day-to-day activities.

b) Something like evolution exists and plays out in the selection of species and numerous other parts of our physical and spiritual lives.

c) JOE and RUTH were the key forces for driving evolution until we recently worked out how to usurp it.

d) God values individual and societal progress towards a better understanding of ourselves and our relationship with God.

e) The smarter we get, the more meaningful our relationship with God might become.

f) Values like honesty, love and justice may be subject to the forces of JOE and RUTH but can only come into play once a species can contemplate them.

g) It is our job to question the stated ways of God – to determine whether they are God’s way or just assumptions on our part.

h) God supports the good guys.

i) Some values and rules are more important than others – please refer to God for the correct hierarchy.

j) Rule breakers and true knowledge seekers are crucial roles in the advancement of our society and our relationship with, and understanding of, God.

k) Evolution may be compelling evidence for God rather than evidence against her.

l) I don’t have all the answers, but I do have plenty of questions.

m) It doesn’t stop me having an opinion or set of beliefs.

n) This should encourage me to recognize the difference between fact, opinion and belief.

o) No level of power or influence ensures someone is right.

p) No level of conviction proves a person right.

q) No level of absurdity proves a person wrong.

r) Logical argument based on factual information or reasonable inference can be compelling.

s) God values many things we do, but not necessarily to the same degree.

t) God has enormous respect for our free will and is highly unlikely to influence our actions unless we ask her to.

u) God lets our lives play out pretty much at the mercy of JOE and RUTH unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

v) We can influence the paths of our lives with our own actions and the support of other believers and non-believers.

w) While there’s not really a level playing field, all humans are equal in the eyes of God.

x) Actions speak louder than words[212].

y) Contribution to universal knowledge and thought, or betterment of our cosmos, planet or community, are useful measures of success.

z) If one faith is completely right and the others completely wrong, God’s wasting a lot of time not coming out and telling us.

So where does this lead us? Let’s find out….

Question 78: What’s the deal with sin?

It’s possible the Christians perfected the concept of sin, but the idea you might be punished for breaking God’s rules has been with us for some time. Eventually, I’ll look at when absence of sin began to qualify you for heaven, but it doesn’t really matter – there are three things we can say unequivocally about God’s take on sin:

a) Although God may do it better, we can generally determine the basics of what is good and what is not.

b) Punishment for sins on Earth either doesn’t exist or is implemented quite randomly.

c) Punishment for sins, or reward for a lack thereof, may be implemented after we physically die, but God’s got some pretty complex math to work out who’s been naughty or nice.

In the process of this book unfolding we’ve identified values God might hold as a basis for determining whether an action is right or wrong. Depending on the complexity of your religion, the rules may be general (e.g. don’t steal stuff) to specific (e.g. don’t pick your nose on the second Wednesday of the Holy month). Regardless, based on your understanding of your God there is likely to be a set of rules you believe in, and there are three things you can confident of:

1. You can ask if these ideas of right and wrong make sense.

2. The idea all sins are created equally is highly dubious.

3. You can get away with it if you want to.

I hold these observations to be relatively self-explanatory. It’s hard to put genocide or repression of entire races on the same scale as a lie told for a good reason. Think back to the last time you lied[213]. Was it for selfish (i.e. “I have to get myself out of this mess” or “I want this result and anyone else knowing the truth would really muck things up”) or unselfish (i.e. “Actually, those jeans have a very slimming effect” or “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus”) reasons? If it was unselfish, I hold your sin slightly less calamitous than mass murder.

We only have to look around our friends and neighbors to see that good people don’t always get a fair deal, and people of questionable character often don’t get their comeuppance. While I’m totally enamored with the concept of Karma, its delivery is pathetically, and somewhat dissatisfyingly, inconsistent. While this fickleness is often presented as evidence for God’s non-existence, it’s actually irrelevant to the argument, as we have free will and know JOE and RUTH also have their paws in the mix.

Fortunately, if a person’s sin is especially egregious, there’s a decent chance they’ve broken a law and we can facilitate their punishment by reporting it. When this doesn’t happen, we’re either scared or ignoring it, suggesting the crime wasn’t large enough to deserve a rap on the knuckles. If we take this approach, when such a crime does affect us we might want to refer back to the section on Karma.

Looking for validation in the afterlife also has some complicating factors:

a) If you don’t thoroughly test your belief system while you’re alive, you might find out your moral compass was “out of whack.”

b) We have no idea how God ranks sins[214].

c) The “get out of jail free” card offered by some religions for those who repent[215] may not play out the way we expect.

Conclusion:

Sinning is bad, not sinning is good. To determine where this leads us, I could give examples of people living exemplary lives, committing a significant sin as their last act, and then compare this to someone living a destructive life and genuinely begging forgiveness on their deathbed, but it’s even simpler. The rewards or punishments of the afterlife should not drive our decisions on how to live. If we’re living a good life purely to gain a spot in heaven, we may be disappointed and we’re definitely misguided. The reason to live a good life is the contribution it makes here on Earth – the reward for doing good is the act itself.

Question 79: Is morality a moving target?

If no one ever reads this book[216], the opportunity to contemplate this question has been enough to make the whole process worthwhile for me. I have always believed in morals truths – values and beliefs we can “hang our hat on” and writing this book has not diminished this conviction. However, when I consider what my God might perceive, the picture of morality becomes far murkier.

Having already alluded to the gray areas, exceptions and complications surrounding a rule like “thou shalt not kill,” there are three additional areas of concern:

1. Does it only apply to humans?

2. Who or what has to obey this rule?

3. Is ignorance an excuse?

If disdain for slaughter is only applicable where a human is a victim, this implies we’re special and other living beings are not. We’ve already discussed this differentiation but given God’s assumed contempt for waste, there may be an opportunity to expand the prohibition to other organisms. If our position on the evolutionary hierarchy is a reason to value our lives above all others, what happens when an animal breaks the rules?

When people are killed by animals, we may track down and kill the culprit to avoid further casualties, but there’s not a long discussion about the unprincipled nature of the beast in question. We tend to recognize the action of a wild animal, acknowledge the unfortunate quality of the incident and move on. If animals can get away with murder, who else might be able to claim mitigating circumstances?

Over the thousands of years it took man to move from existence, to tribal life, to creating cities, states and then countries, at what point did we become responsible for our actions? If our current knowledge and influence over our surroundings is the qualifier for becoming a protected species and having higher standards of morality, it might be worth considering when God perceives the transition to have occurred. The answer could be when we:

a) Became “human[217]”

b) First considered something more than us

c) Became self-aware

d) Realized we haven’t made it there yet

Ultimately, whatever the moment and reason, it’s quite possible there are people on this planet who haven’t met the standard yet. If you’re a cannibal in some obscure corner of our planet, ignorant of morals relating to anything other than the survival of your tribe, would God judge you in the same way she would someone familiar with the mores and ways of the modern world?

The history of “thou shalt not kill” shows an evolution from my immediate family, to anyone in my tribe, to my fellow citizen, to my countryman[218]. The change is almost certainly in our understanding of God’s “gold standard” rather than a change in the actual rules from her perspective. It would be presumptuous of us to assume we’ve finalized our understanding of this rule or any other. Advancements in technology and philosophy may lead to future modifications precluding killing anything:

1. Able to think

2. Able to feel pain

3. Alive

Conclusion:

Our inability to meet or fathom God’s ultimate moral standards is a function of our current physical, spiritual, cultural and philosophical evolution. As we gather a greater understanding of ourselves and our universe, God will expect us to set higher standards. Future generations will look back on us and snicker at our “quaintness” and “simplicity.” Morality is a moving target, the ultimate moral truths are not. Our role is to continually seek increased discernment of God’s ultimate goals and embrace the larger responsibilities this creates.

Question 80: What’s the deal with birth control?

While abortion and birth control are not exactly the same issue, I see them sitting on a continuum relatable to previous observations we’ve made about my God. We’ll explore them both in this, and the following question. However, before delving into this fertile field of fervent fanaticism there are three things I believe everyone should note in relation to these issues:

1. If you vote for politicians based on this issue alone, you may be overlooking other issues of equal importance.

2. My God values human life, but there are other considerations.

3. Your God’s perspective on this issue can only be concluded by thoughtful consultation with her – doctrine, although it might provide the correct answer, is the easy way out.

To address birth control there are two key questions:

1. Are you allowed to have sex for fun under any circumstances?

2. What are the mathematics of birth control?

There’s probably some deep scientific argument for making the act of sex pleasurable and therefore motivating people to perform it. If God only intended it to be for procreation, it’s disappointing she made it so enjoyable. On the assumption love-making is performed in privacy, there are only one hundred and twenty-five million and four stake-holders:

1. The guy

2. The girl[219]

3. God

4. The ovum

5. 125 million sperm

Assuming the male and female are consenting adults, we’re really left with the concerns of God, one egg and a bunch of sperm. The female’s egg has a short period where it might be fertilized and will be discarded if it is not. If the egg is fertilized that’s great, but if it’s not, it doesn’t change its destiny in comparison to sex not occuring. And here’s the kicker:

“The average male ejaculation has 125 million sperm in it[220].”

This means either by design or evolution, God is quite comfortable with a 0.0000008% success rate, meaning over 99.9999% of sperm die even in the best-case scenario. Given God’s limited interest in potential, this means the argument about birth control comes down to whether God condones taking out one sperm or having fun at its expense. Given the wanton waste of innocent sperm in the absence of birth control, I’m thinking God sees little or no significance in the loss of one more.

This should not imply a lack of respect for people practicing abstinence – there is an argument for such self-control being a step forward. However, if you find yourself about to have sex and not aiming to have children – letting one sperm die might save you having to make a decision about abortion (a far more complex issue), getting an STD (you can blame RUTH, not God) or where to send your future child support.

My final thoughts on this issue could have been explored in the previous question on sin, but were omitted due to laziness. If there is a hierarchy of wrongful acts, with some being worse than others, and you know you’re going to do one – I’d expect my God to take a practical perspective – “If you’re going to sin, pick the lesser evil or at least avoid compounding your wrongdoing.”

Conclusion:

If your God believes sex before marriage is wrong, or sex is only for procreation, I can’t see how God would be distressed about this – you’re acting of your own free will, and enforcing this rule works for you. However, God is not so naïve that she thinks bad decisions won’t happen. If recreational sex is a sin, which is worse - protecting yourself and your community from unwanted pregnancies and sexual diseases at the expense of one sperm, or leaving these issues in the hands of RUTH?

If your God is OK with recreational sex, good for you.

Question 81: What’s the deal with abortion?

If you’re boiling mad from my flippant review of my God’s perspective on birth control, I will try to treat this issue with more gravitas – because it deserves it. The amount of emotion and intensity people bring to the abortion debate speaks to its importance and contentiousness.

In framing my perspective of my God’s beliefs about abortion there seem to be five key questions:

a) Does my God value life? (yes)

b) Does my God value potential? (not really)

c) Do all humans have equal rights? (yes)

d) Do women have control of their bodies? (free will might suggest yes)

e) Is God against birth control? (no)

While the last question doesn’t resolve whether abortion is right or wrong, it does reinforce “prevention is the best cure”. If all people having sex, without the intent of having children, had access to birth control and used it, the debate about abortion would cover a much smaller population.

Obviously, for a debate about God’s perspective on abortion to be relevant, the following must occur somewhere:

1. A male and female have sex[221].

2. The female becomes pregnant.

3. One or both of them don’t want to have a child[222].

Contemplating this scenario leads me to two key thoughts:

1. If all humans have rights, even though a woman has the right to control her body, as soon as the fetus is regarded as human it should have rights too.

2. The development of a fetus is very similar to the process of evolution (single cell to multi-cell to complex organism) except the gestation period is a few billion years less.

When building upon these deep insights, it is important to remember that I’m trying to determine the views of an eternal God. While my emotional response might lead me to one conclusion, the view of my God would be in the context of an entire universe and untold millennia of experience. In a SOTF universe, it’s hard to argue an aborted pregnancy is more or less important than a seed destroyed by a ravenous herbivore or the consumption of a frog’s eggs by a predator. However, we’re assuming:

a) We’re the most advanced creatures in the universe (or our level of evolution gives us some greater value).

b) We’ve moved on from SOTF to more complex value systems more aligned with those of God[22][3].

If we are “special” due to our “advanced” thinking we can only conclude that the rest of life is secondary because it’s still mired in a SOTF struggle for survival. On this basis, a fetus must gain its right to life when it becomes human – potential isn’t the measure of humanity, realization is.

With no medical background whatsoever, the timing of when a fetus becomes human will have to be left for the RRR[224] version of this book. Moments that could be candidates might be when the fetus can feel pain, or has a brain or basic human features.

Conclusion:

There is a moment, yet to be determined, where a pregnancy becomes a small human. It is probably not at the moment of conception and it’s well before a child is born. At that instant, abortion becomes a moral dilemma pitting the rights of the child against those of its mother. There is a plethora of circumstances to make this split second even more complex and heart-wrenching. To fully divine God’s perspective probably needs a few more levels of thought and research – stay tuned.

Question 82: Do fauna or flora have rights?

I have suggested human life is more valuable than other life on Earth due to our ability for higher thought and reasoned communication with God. However, if there’s a hierarchy, we need to understand how rights might change as life progresses along the evolutionary scale:

[*225]

The table above shows a basic outline of the capabilities of different entities at various stages of evolution. If you’re just dealing with dead stuff you can be fairly confident it:

a) Doesn’t care whether it has rights

b) Has no opinion

c) Won’t be personally offended

Between dead stuff and us are a few million species with varying qualities of life, and all apparently[226] still fighting it out on a SOTF basis. Within this band are species able to feel pain, able to learn, and possibly on the verge of deeper thought – each of these groupings may add a layer to the rights of these life forms.

Let’s start with the easy part: if God values life and is against waste, if an advanced being[227] has any influence over the outcome, I’d expect every life to have the right to not die unnecessarily. As part of the SOTF food chain they would still enjoy the opportunity to be eaten by predators or be at the mercy of normal[228] environmental changes. However, we (the advanced beings) would be expected to step up and protect their interests when we created the factors impacting them. Of course, this still leaves the definition of “unnecessarily” for discussion, but it’s a start.

Once we encounter creatures that can feel pain[229], it would seem God might add another layer of rights. In the day-to-day struggle of SOTF these mortal organisms face the risk of a painful death. However, unless their encounter with us is “mano a mano[230],” our technological and strategic advantage probably requires a new paradigm – the right to avoid or minimize pain when being used constructively[231] for our benefit. You could attribute this perception of my God’s wishes to leftist, commie, weak-as-piss leanings, but the real reason is probably simpler – self-interest. If I don’t perceive this as a reasonable right, I’d better have a great argument when Earth is invaded by the Gorgons – our mental superiority places a burden on us to live up to a higher standard than creatures still stuck in the SOTF maelstrom.

If something has the capacity to consciously learn, it opens up the potential for more complex social relationships and emotions, and puts it on the verge of higher thought. This is the rich melting pot that ultimately led to us. At a minimum, this should give us a huge amount of respect for beings who have reached this point. My God would probably expect an additional tier of rights for them[232] but I’m not sure what they should be and who qualifies for them. I’m definitely reconsidering how many primates, elephants, dolphins, rats and crows I eat – whether I need to cut out pork, calamari, pigeon and squirrel is yet to be decided.

Conclusion:

All living things have rights, which come from humans divesting themselves of the day-to-day struggle of SOTF. As soon as a life form reaches a point where it has the ability to consciously influence its own evolution, and the survival of other life forms, it has an added responsibility to proffer these rights and enforce them wherever possible. These privileges are likely to be tiered based on the organism’s place along the evolutionary continuum.

Question 83: What responsibility do we have for our environment?

Just as there’s never been a terrestrial being with as much control over its evolutionary destiny, the level of influence we have over our environment is also a first. While we haven’t reached the point of controlling the weather or natural disasters, our powers over our surroundings span from central air conditioning or heating, to moving mountains, to changing eco-systems with our development.

Even if our planet was created purely for our entertainment, our graduation from SOTF to a more enlightened existence places additional responsibilities upon us. In the last question, I outlined the outrageous concept of living things having rights (however diluted they may be). When we consider the entirety of our surroundings, we inherit and build upon responsibilities driven by:

a) Obligations to our descendents

b) Flora and Fauna rights

c) The limitations of our own technology

d) The uneven playing field

e) Desire to preserve diversity

f) Ensuring our tanning celebrities are protected

g) Other stuff

Our ability to successfully transition from SOTF where our only duty is to ourselves or our immediate comrades, to actions based on morality and prescience, is a key issue. This is not a condemnation of humanity, merely a reality driven by the difficult transition from an insular to a global perspective, and the day-to-day requirements of surviving the competition within our own species.

While the human race seems to have a unique opportunity to choose its own destiny, this can’t be said for all people. Every day billions of people struggle, and fail, to maintain or achieve the basic nutrition, shelter and health requirements underpinning any possibility of education, financial independence or time to contemplate anything of great merit. It’s hard to see how God would or could expect the same moral standards from individuals who haven’t really been allowed the opportunity to rise above SOTF. This situational morality is a giant chasm between the “haves” of our society and the “have nots.” In the context of environmental concerns, and many others, the ability to implement the gold standard of our obligations to nature is significantly inhibited by the uneven playing field being perpetuated on a daily basis.

Monitoring the transition from SOTF to individuals with understanding of their moral obligations is probably best left to God. However, it seems patently unfair for wealthy individuals, corporations and countries who have benefited from lax standards[233] to expect similar entities in emerging economies to immediately leap to standards inhibiting their opportunities.

From environmental degradation on the Bhopal scale to wasteful use of resources by individuals, our obligation to future generations and the rights of the other organisms seem likely to be an important touchstone for God when assessing our progress. While the pursuit of profit is capitalism’s “raison d’etre,” there’s no reason the standards of our corporations shouldn’t evolve as well. When an organization’s products’ negative environmental or societal impact outweighs the benefits to consumers and shareholders, it might be time to rethink its merits.

Conclusion:

God’s standard for interaction with our environment probably starts with “don’t make it any worse than it already is” and moves to higher expectations as we get our act together. There’s a decent chance our respect for the planet gets a low mark when compared to either measure.

As we’ve increased our understanding of our impact on the world around us, our responsibility to complement and nurture it has enlarged as well.

Question 84: What responsibility do we have for and to our children?

In large swathes of the animal kingdom, parents and members of the broader community recognize the importance of allowing children the chance to develop while protected from many of the challenges facing adults. If wild animals take this altruistic stance, it must serve as a bare minimum for our kids. While the age when youngsters become grown ups may leave room for debate[234], how we treat our offspring has to be a key measuring stick for our society.

As our technologies and knowledge advance, and the adult world impinges more and more on the lives of our children, God’s expectations for our safeguarding and nurturing should increase commensurately. In a perfect world, all anklebiters would have the right to:

1. A balanced education[235]

2. Basic nutrition

3. Parents who care

4. Play time

5. Structured and sensitive discipline

6. Avoid exploitation in any way

7. Be heard

8. Evolve their own understanding of God

The list could be longer, but the mixed results we achieve on these standards suggest substantial room for improvement. If we accept that God values results, our ongoing spiritual and intellectual advancement, love, diversity and a couple of other key components, the importance of treating children as a “special class” within our society becomes even clearer.

With the sponge-like abilities of their brains, evolving ideas of right and wrong, and physical immaturity, it seems broadly accepted kids are not capable of the fending for themselves in an adult world. Until they are[236], in exchange for giving up some rights[237] they should receive superior protection. While this may be a step beyond the care provided by parents in a SOTF scenario, if we aspire to have a civilization worthy of God’s enthusiastic endorsement we should aim for:

1) Elimination of any circumstances where an adult takes advantage of a child

2) Guaranteed delivery of basic nutrition, housing and education for all children

While the definition of childhood, and when this exchange of rights should occur, may change as we evolve, the underlying premise remains constant. Until every youngster has the opportunity to reach adulthood with a basic chance to explore their potential, we inhibit their progress and our own.

Defending these basic privileges[238] for children should not be interpreted to mean our offspring shouldn’t:

a) Be challenged

b) Experience sorrow, loss or disappointment

c) Anticipate and experience competition

d) Be disciplined

e) Reciprocate with appropriate respect for adults

f) Avoid consequences for inappropriate actions

g) Tidy their rooms and be responsible for their toys

Conclusion:

Our graduation from SOTF to accelerating our evolution cannot be regarded as complete until all our spawn have basic protections and opportunity[239]. Whitney Houston was right – “the children are our future.” If our God is prepared to nurture us, we should be prepared to nurture our kids[240].

Question 85: Is economic growth a goal in itself?

If God doesn’t value wealth in its own right, the potential for economic growth to be an underlying goal would seem to be pretty slim. However, it’s important to reflect on the importance of expanding our financial system as:

1) Governments and pundits often seem to present it as “the cure for all ills.”

2) Understanding its importance in God’s hierarchy of values might help us make better decisions.

3) Just as wealth is neither good nor bad, the value of economic growth can only be assessed by understanding its full impact on the surrounding community.

Fortunately, having recently experienced the joys of an economy run amok, we probably have a tangible feeling for the pros and cons of measuring success though wealth creation.

Whether you’re a child in a playground or an adult pursuing wealth by conducting “serious” business:

a) Having the most toys only shows you have the most toys.

b) How you got your toys influences God’s perspective on their value.

c) How you share your toys affects your input to your community.

d) Getting more toys only shows you can get more toys.

e) God probably doesn’t care how many toys you have.

f) Your toys may be confiscated at any moment.

Just as individual pursuit of riches will have caveats based on how the process is conducted and benefits others, so should the acts of corporations and governments. As economic growth generally leads to more jobs, greater income and flow-on opportunities, there’s a basic argument for more being better. However, if an initiative causes the economy to grow by a billion dollars and:

1) Replaces a project capable of educating millions and generating billions of dollars of growth within ten years

2) Causes environmental damage to be paid for by future generations

3) Exploits poor laws or regulations to take advantage of those unable to defend themselves

4) Plants most of the financial benefits into the hands of people who don’t need or won’t use[241] the money

5) Makes my football team less likely to win the championship

any one of these reasons[242] should be enough to ask whether the growth in question is worth the cost. Unfortunately, even the best corporations are driven by profit, and we have grown accustomed to measuring our country’s success by factors like economic growth.

If two kids out of one hundred own all of the toys in the playground, God probably doesn’t care greatly. However, if those children don’t look out for the other ninety-eight by sharing, giving or helping them get toys too, I think God would perceive something was wrong with the system. Similarly, economic growth that fails to meaningfully benefit both rich and poor has to be of arguable merit.

If a portion of humanity has risen above SOTF we should probably consider whether this creates an obligation to bring everyone along for the ride. The benefits of fostering excellence, innovation and progress through competition have helped us achieve a great deal as a planet. However, there is not a level playing field, and my God would expect me to ask what’s a more meaningful contribution:

a) Owning the playing fields and restricting entrance based on financial capacity, education or health

b) Letting anyone play but keeping the good equipment for friends

c) Giving everyone a chance to suit up, even if it means subsidizing those in genuine need

Conclusion:

There’s nothing wrong with pursuing economic growth for your community - whether you define it as your family, city, country or planet. Using it as your primary goal, without considering the net impact, seems inconsistent with the empathy and care my God would expect.

Question 86: How important is education?

At every stage of our lives we are offered opportunities to educate ourselves or embrace ignorance. The choice is not between formal study and the school of hard knocks, as both can offer important insights, but rote learning without question versus curious, skeptical, inquisitive knowledge accumulation in pursuit of the truth. It’s possible for these two processes to end at the same point, but without querying and rumination the rote learner only has data to regurgitate rather than wisdom to apply to the universe and share with others.

Education is like an earthquake – the closer you are to the epicenter, the more profound the impact might be on your life. In addition, while the timing and location of tremors is hard to predict, there are places around the world with very high chances of seismic activity and others with very little chance of upheaval. Until learning becomes more like air – available to all regardless of their location or financial capacity – we will be limiting the ability of humanity to move forward and falling short of the standards my God would aspire to. If we were still wallowing in SOTF it would be acceptable to ignore our competitors and grasp the advantages of education without heed to their plight. But we’re not, so we can’t.

As meaningful learning can come from life experience and a formal educational environment, it may be tempting to suggest letting RUTH take her course with each individual’s learning experience. Unfortunately, in the case of large swathes of the planet’s poorer population this would mean limited opportunity to aim for aspirations beyond day-to-day tedium[243]. It’s hard to argue someone has chosen ignorance when their constant priority is survival.

The nature of any curriculum in these circumstances would be worthy of some debate. However, asking what we would value in these instances might be a useful starting point. While we might let some philosophical perspectives color our choices, if we also refer to the evolution of our society it might offer a progression of training along the lines of:

a) Provide the basic skills to garner food and shelter

b) Identify the key information to prevent disease or health issues

c) Teach skills that allow the individual to progress from survival to having disposable time[244]

d) Offer diverse avenues of pertinent education based on the interests and passions of the individual

e) Help them explore their relationship with God

While this offers a serial process when some aspects could be run in parallel, the order reflects what I would aspire to – help me get a basic and sustainable standard of living before I consider ways to improve on it and relate to God. Until an individual has consciously removed themselves from the SOTF brawl, contemplation and higher thought are probably secondary.

The power of education, both good and bad, cannot be underestimated:

a) Children in abusive relationships learn the behaviors forced upon them are acceptable[245].

b) People instructed that they are part of a superior elite whose tenets can’t be questioned, may believe it[246].

c) Believers taught to accept doctrine unquestioningly may miss out on a far deeper and nuanced relationship with their God.

d) Great religious and secular leaders evolve from crucial moments of teaching and contemplation.

e) Great scientific achievements can only come through a process of seeking understanding.

Denying basic schooling to any portion of our global society significantly inhibits the opportunities of the individual and shows a failure in our commitment to the basic responsibilities we have to all children.

Conclusion:

Creating a minimal level of education for everyone, and then moving the bar upward at a constant pace, is probably only secondary to doing the same for standards of health. If we really believe we’ve evolved past SOTF, our treatment of our population’s most vulnerable is a telling measure of the truth.

Question 87: Will I get my rewards in heaven, my come-uppance in hell or something else?

As you may have already decided, my chances of getting into heaven are severely limited for a number of reasons:

a) My behavior is deplorable.

b) Some things are unforgivable.

c) I’m not convinced it exists in the traditional form.

While the first two items make me a prime candidate for hanging out in Hades long-term, do I believe there’s eternal damnation in my future?

Hell, no[247].

While I totally understand if you disagree, it is easy to justify believing my God is not selectively pigeon-holing people into perpetual bliss or agony based on our cursory time on Earth, as:

a) It’s completely inconsistent with her stance on justice, equality, love and a whole lot of other stuff.

b) If we accept that her existence is primarily non-physical, creating physical interpretations of heaven and hell probably misses the mark.

c) The rules for entry into the after-life may not be as restrictive as we think[248].

Having summarily dismissed the largest reward and penalty for our behavior on Earth, we are left with two possibilities upon our death – nothing or something. When it comes to survival of ideas and thoughts, we’ve already reached the point where our physical bodies are not the only repositories – is it such a big stretch to believe some remnant of our non-physical selves is stored or continued in a non-physical way?

If the criteria for entering the afterlife are a little more lax than previously thought, there’s going to be all sorts of questionable characters hanging out there. Maybe they’ll:

a) Continually be causing a ruckus

b) Get all their flaws removed at the door

c) Be fighting tooth and nail with the “good guys”

If the glorious battle between good and evil continues in the next world, I’m betting on my God’s values to win out, as the progression is simple:

SOTF – No justice, no mercy, no ethics

NOW- Some justice, some mercy, some ethics

AFTER-LIFE – I’ll leave to you to work it out

This suggests the after-life is a better place, but if it does exist, I’m not highly motivated to get there anytime soon because:

1) It’ll be there regardless of the date of my passing

2) I might be completely wrong and need to improve my record

3) There’s plenty of fun stuff to do here in the meantime

If the qualifications for life after death are so perfunctory, it’s reasonable to wonder what the motivations to live a good life might be. If your God values love, honesty and integrity, you may already have the answer. Pursuit of good may be its own ultimate reward. If not, have a chat with your God, as I have no additional ideas on that front.

Conclusion:

If the questions is “Will I get my rewards in heaven, my come-uppance in hell or something else?” there can only be one conclusion:

“If I make it to the after-life, it will be something else.”

Question 88: What’s this mean for sex?

As a male I regard this as the most important question in the book. To set the scene for the ground-breaking, mind-boggling, life-changing[249] perspectives on God’s take on sex, let’s review what we know:

1. God probably has no sexual identity.

2. Sex appears to have evolved as a way of encouraging procreation[250].

3. Sex is an adult behavior because our bodies are built that way and God values protection for children.

4. The loss of one additional sperm through the use of birth control is probably not a big deal.

5. Certain types of sex can make babies.

6. Our sexual urges can be attributed to basic instincts.

7. Our sexual urges can be attributed to deeply felt emotions.

Probably the most fascinating aspect of this conglomeration of insights is the extraordinary gap between how interested we are in sex and how much God cares. The amount of angst experienced by otherwise sane adults over the sinfulness of certain acts, desire for particular sexual partners and other concepts of sexual right and wrong would seem disproportionate to how much God cares[251].

While God’s concern with sex may not be much more than an amused curiosity about how much anxiety we cause ourselves over such a trivial act, this does not minimize the value of concepts like:

a) Waiting

b) Abstinence

c) Respect for your partner

d) Safe sex

The sexual act is unlikely to register as good or bad in God’s perspective – in its basic form it’s a purely physical act between consenting adults and causes no harm when handled correctly. However, this “trivial” act can have extraordinarily negative consequences when used unwisely. On this basis, it’s probable God is more concerned about the actions and emotions surrounding sex than the feat itself.

Whether we regard sex as a primitive impulse or an expression of love, concepts like abstinence and waiting might appeal to God as they show internal fortitude, patience and discipline. There may even be an argument for the absence of sex offering a chance to focus on more important matters, … like God[252]. However, some unfettered entertainment between responsible grown-ups is unlikely to be frowned upon. Ultimately, God’s almost certainly OK with “a little jiggy” if the participants:

a) Are of an appropriate age

b) Understand the risks and rewards

c) Minimize the chances of babies or disease[253]

d) Agreed to participate without coercion or misrepresentation

e) Show appropriate respect for their partner(s)

f) Can handle it

Having reviewed this list, and considered the likelihood of all six of these things occurring, it seems a strong argument for waiting till you’re mature enough to handle it – probably around your eighty-eighth birthday. Regardless, it reinforces the importance of “doing unto others” when you’re “doing unto them.”

Conclusion:

If God happened to flip through this book, she’d have a good chance of skipping this section due to overwhelming disinterest. While the emotions, integrity and responsibility surrounding “doing the wild thing” are likely to be of importance, if we’re old enough to wade in with our eyes open, we’re old enough to come to our own conclusions about what’s right and wrong for us.

Question 89: Is marriage important?

It’s possible that this is the wrong question[254]. It’s fair to say marriage has had a bad rap over the last few years – with divorce rates as high as 50%, arguments over who has the right to marry, and many couples choosing to “live in sin,” the institution is clearly under siege.

Not surprisingly, the nature of marriage has taken many forms throughout history. While a contract between a man and a woman is the most common, some religions or cultures have allowed same sex marriages, a man to marry multiple wives, a woman to marry multiple husbands and even multiple wives to marry multiple husbands. The defining characteristics of these unions have usually been:

a) A commitment to an ongoing relationship

b) Some requirement of fidelity[255]

c) Belief the relationship will be mutually beneficial

The additional complexity of romantic love appears to have come on the scene in the last 500 years or so.

The storied, and very long, history of marriage in its various forms suggests we’ve recognized the value of commitment and fidelity throughout the years – regardless of our ability to deliver it. Recognizing we’re a work in progress, my God’s take on marriage is likely to be influenced by:

1. A respect for, but disinterest in, ritual

2. Valuing love, commitment & honesty

3. Its impact on achievement and enlightenment

In essence, my God would be likely to assess the importance of marriage on a case-by-case basis, and look at the quality of the relationship and the rewards it creates for the participants and the universe as a whole. Regardless of the ritual, contractual obligations, number or nature of the adult[256] participants, the measure of a marriage is in results, not potential.

As a romantic, I’m thrilled with the idea of being forever linked to my gorgeous wife[257]. However, if there is an after-life, I’m a little unclear on how the marriage contract[258] will carry over – I’d also be intrigued to find out what happens if you had multiple joyous marriages[259]. This is not an indictment on our current understanding of marriage – merely a way to lead to a context for understanding God’s possible thoughts thereof.

If our reflections on marriage are limited to our time on this earthly realm, current records and life expectancies suggest the longest commitment is under 100 years[260]. In a multi-billion-year-old universe, this fraction of the blink of an eye is unlikely to register as significant from God’s perspective. Whether a relationship lasts five years or eighty is unlikely to be important to my God – what it creates, produces, nurtures and leaves as a legacy seems far more pertinent.

Our committed personal relationships and the connection we create with God have some common themes, we can:

1. Make them incredibly fulfilling and meaningful

2. Find them hard and in need of repair

3. Screw them up royally

Just as our appreciation of God can change over time, so can our perceptions of our life partners. We hope the modifications are for the better, but only through genuine commitment and empathy with the other party can we find the keys to a lasting union, able to grow richer and deeper as it progresses.

Conclusion:

The basic tenets of marriage as we perceive it – honesty, fidelity, empathy, mutual benefit and love – are probably the foundations of a transcendent relationship. Our inability to consistently meet the requirements of the institution mean we have to get better at it and, perhaps in the short-term, reconsider what we’re capable of. Call it whatever you like, but a brief liaison filled with the basic ingredients may be significantly more valuable to the participants than a long matrimony without them.

Question 90: I’m a citizen of what?

Our perception of what constitutes our kin is a profound articulation of our understanding of ourselves. The first humans to wander the Earth may have been loners or identified with a small clan – everyone else was the enemy. As we evolved our communities from villages to cities, then states to countries, our understanding of God expanded along with our universe.

While there are still some tribal communities, most of the planet’s population now identifies with a country, race or hodgepodge thereof. Some radicals may even claim to be citizens of the planet[261]! Although we may regard these labels as important components of our selves, it is unlikely these perceptions will stand the test of time. Why would a universal God care whether we were Italian, Latvian or Vietnamese?

Whether we are alone in the cosmos or not, at some stage we will explore it, and Earthlings will populate space and other planets and become Martians, Kryptonians or Someothermadeupnamians. Throughout this process God will have regarded us as intelligent life forms capable of evolving to higher levels of spirituality, who happen to be human.

This does not require us to turn our backs on our country, race, city or family. It merely flags[262] the high likelihood that there’s a greater purpose within both the physical and spiritual macrocosm.

Conclusion:

Barring an extraordinary curveball from RUTH[263], JOE will ultimately lead us to awareness of our overwhelming commonality and embracing our status as citizens of the planet. At a later date, we’ll realize our community spans the universe and our defining characteristics are intelligence, introspection, emotions, values and other foundations for a more evolved, transcendent existence. God will have known this all along.

Question 91: How does this “do unto others” thing play out?

The preponderance of the “Golden Rule[264]” throughout the world’s major religions is a testimony to its simplicity and profundity:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

I still remember the day I read and absorbed this insight for the first time. The beauty of the phrase is the number of questions hidden within:

1) Does it really mean “Do unto others as they would have done unto them”?

2) Does this only apply to humans or have implications for how we treat every living thing we interact with?

3) What if I’d like some really weird stuff done to me – should I be doing it to everyone else?

4) If I implement this rule and others take advantage of my thoughtfulness, at what point should I take a different approach?

5) If bad people have bad intentions for me, should I reciprocate?

The answers to these questions[265] can only come through ongoing reflection and deliberation. Regardless, the ingeniousness of the phrase is in the multiple layers – if you do something bad or heinous to someone, aren’t you implicitly making it acceptable for them to do to you? It’s either that, or you’re just not a very nice person – choose your poison.

To determine how the Golden Rule fits with my God’s perspective on living a good life, the starting point has to be the key values she subscribes to:

1) Honesty

2) Justice

3) Love

4) Caring

5) Performance

6) Persistence

7) Integrity

Using these seven basic values as a starting point, appropriate application of the Golden Rule might become more apparent by asking whether you value people treating you with honesty, justice, love or care[266]. However, the key word in the phrase is “Do.” On this basis, the rule is driven more by the action and its nature than the fundamental values underpinning it – the core of living up to its standards are performance, persistence and integrity. Therefore, key components of living by the “Golden Rule” might include:

1) Treat other people honestly, justly, lovingly and carefully.

2) Don’t espouse great values for others, yet fail to apply them in your own actions[267].

3) Don’t expect perfection from others unless you can consistently deliver it yourself.

4) Promising great and wonderful acts is not nearly as endearing as delivering them.

5) After each unsatisfactory encounter with another person ask yourself two questions:

a. Did I treat them the way I’d like to be treated if I was in their shoes?

b. Did they act they way I’d like to if I was in their shoes?

6) At the end of each day ask yourself “Did I treat myself the way I’d like to be treated if I was in my shoes[268]?”

7) Don’t say you’ll do something important for someone else and then provide a result showing a lack of commitment or effort.

8) Under-promise, over-deliver.

9) It never hurts to be polite.

You may reach additional or different conclusions, but there’s no question, this rule is golden!

Conclusion:

There have probably been more eloquent and in-depth discussions of the Golden Rule, but the beauty lies in the subtleties we can all find through our own contemplations. With so many great thinkers and religious leaders stating its merit, it might just be worth some thought.

Question 92: Is everyone else just an idiot?

Although I doubt this is a uniquely American issue, the news media and recent political campaigns in the United States continue to reinforce a supposed chasm between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, rich and poor, North and South, … you name the interest groups, they’ll name the abyss lying between them. To suggest different groups will always see eye to eye is naïve. However, debates about important issues seem to have devolved into propaganda exercises characterized by:

1) Selective use of information

2) Selective ignorance of the facts

3) Constant name calling & vitriol

4) Earnest disrespect for the other side’s perspective

5) More focus on winning than finding common ground

6) Stubborn resistance to progress due to embedded beliefs which may not be fully aligned with the wishes of constituents

7) Resolute commitment to obviously failed structures and systems to the detriment of innovation and social progress

… I’m sorry, was I talking about political or religious discourse?

While religious tolerance has advanced significantly from the days of the Holocaust, Inquisition, Crusades and Roman persecutions, the current tensions between Muslims and Christians[269] suggest there’s still a long way to go. The apparent regression of political argument is not an encouraging sign either. Unfortunately, the mediocrity of discussion in these realms seems to be a function of a desire or tendency to focus on points of difference rather than seeking common ground

I’d be lying if I suggested I’d never described comments by a politician of an opposing perspective as “moronic[270].” However, after the initial unsophisticated response, we have an obligation to put ourselves in our detractor’s shoes and try to understand their perspective. Sometimes this leads me to a slightly modified perspective; on other occasions I have enjoyed significant changes in my views.

From a religious standpoint, I’m not suggesting any need for sudden conversions or earth shattering about faces. However, there is an excellent chance:

1) We can learn by trying to understand someone else’s perspective[271]

2) Our differences are less than we think

3) Each side has something to contribute to a better universe

4) Any differences of opinion should not be attributed to a lack of intelligence on either side’s part

5) Rejecting a person’s perspective without understanding it implies

a. A lack of commitment to seeking out truth

b. A latent fear of finding out something capable of modifying your views

c. A lack of confidence in your own beliefs and their ability to absorb change and grow

Our own preparedness to honor other people’s intelligence and opinions has to reflect the underlying confidence we have in our own. If we don’t feel we have the brainpower to reject drivel or “morally compromising” material, we can choose not to participate in the discussion. However, if we choose this path we should also acknowledge this undermines our understanding of the issues and ability to make a fully rounded case for our point of view.

Conclusion:

Idiocy is probably less prevalent than we might think. Instinctive rejection of opposing opinions without a thorough examination of the other person’s outlook is probably more common. If we have a genuine commitment to connecting with our God, we have an ongoing obligation to ask questions we think are important to us and our deity. Some of the answers to these questions may come through deeply considering the views of those who most frustrate, irritate and rankle us.

Question 93: What is the true measure of a successful life?

Part of the answer to this question has to be driven by whether you regard this life as a preparation for the next one, or whether this is it. While I believe there’s a strong argument for something beyond our Earthly existence, there’s also significant merit in trying to assess a successful life by what we achieve in our physical form[272]. Interestingly enough, two factors we often turn to, popularity and wealth, seem to verge on irrelevant when we consider my God’s value system. The reason for this is the word “achieve.”

In the progression of our lives we might accumulate many things:

a) Possessions

b) Awards

c) Money

d) Popularity

e) Experiences

f) Relatives

While all of these might be results or symptoms of a successful life, none of them directly measure the factors important to my God. Based on the values we’ve identified previously, useful gauges of an accomplished life might boil down to:

1. Contribution to universal knowledge[273]

2. Leaving the physical universe in better condition than you received it[274]

3. A meaningful relationship with God and/or the universe[275]

4. Positive contribution to your community[276]

5. Integrity in your pursuit, support, vocalization and implementation of your value system

6. Commitment to goodness and positive energy

7. Persistence

This shouldn’t be regarded as an exhaustive list and the ultimate measures are probably for you to work out with your God. However, if we look at individuals admired for their lives, whether religious beliefs play a part or not, one or more of these attributes is almost certainly apparent.

In our celebrity-driven culture, you’ll occasionally see popularity and wealth driven by factors which would seem inconsistent with my God’s values. However, the actions that generate outpourings of appreciation for a life well lived are never about the individual’s popularity, wealth or influence. Mourners genuinely touched by a person’s passing express admiration for their example, impact of their life’s work, generosity, uncommon perspective, leadership…

There is no relationship between fame and fortune and any success God might relate to.

Conclusion:

Believing the measure of our lives is not found in some of our societal stereotypes is not an indictment of those methods of quantifying achievement. However, when we consider God’s values and areas of interest, there’s a decent chance we’re occasionally misguided in our priorities. From God’s perspective, it’s likely a successful life is about contribution, personal growth and betterment of society.

Question 94: Is the end nigh?

History shows rumors of our death have been greatly exaggerated[277]. While I can’t preclude Armageddon, Apocalypse, Ragnarok, meteor strike, rapid climate change[278], a sudden implosion of the universe or some other equally amusing conclusion to our existence,… everyone who has predicted a date prior to today has been wrong. My math is not advanced enough to determine the ultimate probability of the end of the world as we know it[279] today but the calculation might look something like this:

Probability of today being the end of the world:

About the same as yesterday

Assumptions:

Years we’ve been smart enough to consider our extinction: 50,000[280]

Days it hasn’t happened: 18,263,000[281]

Recognizing the enormous disappointment we must have with the copious prophecies of doom failing to come to fruition, it’s not out of the question RUTH could crash the party at any moment. However, you can be confident my God will have nothing to do with it.

God’s lack of interest in ending our existence could be driven by her commitment to free will, tendency to like us a little, affection for life, intrinsic goodness, lack of interest in the physical spectrum or boredom. Regardless, any “Acts of God” should not be inappropriately attributed to my God – it’s either RUTH or some other force.

While only one prediction of our ignominious end has to come to fruition to truly upset the applecart, it probably doesn’t matter for a number of reasons:

1) We probably can’t do anything about it[282].

2) Nothing like it has happened on Earth in the last 23 billion or so days[283].

3) It doesn’t change anything about what we should be achieving and how we should be living in the meantime.

Regardless of whether the end of the world is tomorrow, next week or postponed indefinitely, you only have till the conclusion of your life to achieve what you aspire to. If knowing the end was imminent would change your actions, it’s certainly something to consider moving forward. However, since the last dinosaur predicted “that asteroid will be the death of us[284],” predictions of global demise have been relatively unsuccessful.

Conclusion:

Living a life in fear of impending worldwide catastrophe is probably inappropriate given the limited and poorly executed track record. However, it is a timely reminder of our mortality. While living every day as though it is your last may be too extreme a reaction, I’d encourage living each day as though the average person only gets about 24,000[285]. When you take away the number of days it takes to “grow up[286],” it’s pretty sobering.

Question 95: Should I be prepared to die for my beliefs?

With our society coalescing the most advanced technologies in our history, various religious faiths, and biases based on centuries of contentiousness, humans have found many innovative and inventive ways to die for their beliefs[287]. Based on a complex grouping system researched and conducted by the author[288], these types of religious acts can be categorized as follows:

a) Killing yourself and others as a sign of commitment

b) Dying at the hands of others due to their intolerance and your commitment to maintaining your beliefs

c) Letting yourself, or someone you are guardian for, die because saving the life is inconsistent with what your God would want

These three groups are often referred to respectively as offence, defense and inaction.

Having already established my God’s enthusiasm for life, I’m prepared to go a step further and suggest she values my life[289]. Admittedly, if there is an afterlife, the downside of physical death seems smaller, but it would still imply that offing yourself in a manner inconsistent with God’s values is a no-no[290].

With this in mind, it’s hard for me to comprehend why my God would ask, encourage or condone me taking my own and other lives. My first thought is that my God would find offence offensive because:

a) It shows an inability to resolve issues through intelligent discussion[291].

b) It assumes the lives of the innocent victims have no value[292].

c) Fighting a spiritual war with physical means seems extraordinarily unlikely to be an effective strategy[293].

d) It suggests my life is less important than the belief I’m trying to represent.

This last point is one of the tenets of many religions, and it’s hard not to perceive a certain beauty in the concept. To have found a “truth” you are so passionate about you’d die for it may be a transcendent experience. However, I doubt it has any enduring value when accompanied by the first three issues[294].

In contrast, history is littered with individuals who were prepared to use their lives in defense of their beliefs (e.g. Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Tank Man – Tiananmen Square). Most religions can cite individuals who provide inspiration to their believers by putting their values before their lives. From God’s perspective, I suspect the magnificence of such commitment is in the act itself, rather than the result. My God is unlikely to encourage someone to sacrifice their lives for their beliefs. However, I have no doubt she would understand how a preparedness to do so might lead to important changes in our collective consciousness.

It’s hard to see how my God would find a similar splendor in inaction. Having established her passion for life, compatibility with science and apathy about ritual, any decision by a person to ignore an opportunity to save their own or their child’s life has to be of questionable merit. Whether it’s blood transfusions, life-saving surgery or medication[295], if fear of science or commitment to ritual overrides respect for life, the priorities are inconsistent with those of my God.

Conclusion:

Our physical lives offer an opportunity for learning, experience and evolution different to any spiritual existence. Premature shortening of a life to defend or honor our beliefs is a tragedy in any circumstances. However, showing the integrity to put your life on the line, without risking the lives of others, is admirable and has been pivotal in many of our social advances.

Question 96: What if we’re not the smartest kids on the block?

While the occasional UFO sighting or exposé on Area 51 might give us reason to wonder, throughout modern history mankind has been the undisputed king of intellect on our planet. In the twenty-first century we face two possible challenges to this supremacy:

a) Artificial intelligence

b) Alien intelligence

We already have machines with greater computing capability than us. As we advance artificial intelligence to encompass decision-making and other more complex thought processes, it’s not unreasonable to assume it has the potential to move toward higher-level thinking and eventually the potential for computers to surpass[296] our current skill sets.

While most leading scientists don’t seem to think contact with alien life forms is going to happen any time soon[297], there seems to be increasing evidence for life outside of Earth’s atmosphere[298], and even the possibility life on this planet was seeded from space.

Neither of these scenarios has to happen, or be possible, for the question to be a pertinent one. Genetic engineering, variances in socio-economic advancement between nations, scientific breakthroughs and even evolution might create a scenario where a sub-group of our population makes a giant leap[299] and differentiates itself from the rest of us[300].

Regardless of the source, if our intellectual superiority is undermined, it could be devastating to believers without context for it in their relationship with God. While we might not be the only life forms God chooses to interact with, a realization we’re not the smartest ones could be more than our egos can handle.

Until we identify an entity with greater intelligence we have the right to assume we’re number one. However, any concerns we might have about being dumped by God for a better model should be allayed by her:

a) Preparedness to interact with all of us regardless of IQ, race, sex, achievement, age, religion, etc.

b) Unfettered enthusiasm for learning, experience, advancement and expansion of universal knowledge

c) Commitment to integrity

d) High standards of relationship management

Just as we honor the brainpower of all human beings[301], God almost certainly has no interest in the physical aspects of any being capable of higher thought. Whether you’re a mutant squid from the planet Pawakitan, a self-aware computer with confidence issues or a human of below-average intellect[302], God’s interested in your experiences, learning and contribution to the universal database.

Conclusion:

It is possible humanity will never have to meet an alien life form, be surpassed by computers in some area of thought or travel divergent paths of evolution. However, if any of these scenarios eventuate, my God is ready to embrace them as opportunities rather than affronts to the status quo.

While our humanity could be the qualifying criteria for access to God, it seems unlikely. If our brainpower is the driving force, it ensures two things:

a) Our access pass is not going to be revoked

b) Someone or something else may gain access, too

Question 97: Any suggestions for rules to live by?

Today’s major religions and our secular experiences both have the potential to provide deep insights into how God might want us to live our lives. Pretending there’s a definitive line between our religious beliefs and our daily interaction with the universe is illogical – a person’s deeply held convictions permeate everything they do. On this basis, and recognizing my own fallibility, here are a few rules my God might be OK with:

1) Do unto God as you would have done unto you[303].

2) Do unto all living things as they would have done unto them, or as you would have done unto you, whichever makes the most sense in the circumstances[304].

3) Don’t kill anyone without a bloody good reason[305].

4) Don’t kill anything without a bloody good reason[306].

5) Don’t steal stuff without a fantastically good reason your God and those you love and/or respect would regard as justified[307].

6) Participate in all of your relationships with uncompromising honesty and empathy.

7) Don’t commit to a life partner if you’re not ready, willing and able.

8) Even if your circumstances engender you with rights, treat them as privileges[308].

9) Don’t deny the rights you cherish to anyone else.

10) Don’t ever stop asking questions or learning.

11) Don’t forget you may be wrong at any moment in time.

12) Always pursue the truth with open eyes, ears, mind and heart.

13) Always argue your case with dignity, and respect for all participants[309].

14) Never exploit a child.

15) Pursue your exploits with diligence, passion and determination.

16) Never confuse wealth with success[310].

17) Don’t neglect your body and its health unless you’re trading it for something you and God value more[311].

18) Get off your backside and do something useful, unless you aspire to be truly mediocre or have no opportunity to do so[312].

19) Always remember you’re responsible for your reaction to JOE and RUTH.

20) Don’t let the uneven playing field get you down - evolution is a long and patient process[313].

21) Never believe differing intellect, DNA, power, opportunity, skills or riches make you better than anyone else.

22) Make the most of your terrestrial life, it may be the only one you get.

23) Break the rules whenever it is the right thing to do.

24) If speaking will make you a hypocrite, remember the value of silence.

25) If action will make you a hypocrite, be still.

26) Leave the universe a better place because of your existence.

Conclusion:

This list should not be regarded as exhaustive or definitive, but rules where God and I might be in agreement. There’s almost certainly others to be added, and future revisions may reflect this.

Question 98: Phrases to live by?

While some of these may only serve to reinforce rules mentioned in the previous section, they have come to mind in the process of exploring the other ninety-nine questions for God or resonated in some way.

Personal responsibility:

a) When the freight train is coming, get out of the way[314].

b) God helps those who help themselves[315].

c) You should always be aware of the law of unintended consequences, as you may be held responsible for it[316].

d) Getting it wrong is an important part of getting it right.

Character:

a) The person of integrity knows how to work for the public good; the inferior person bothers only about personal profit[317].

b) No one is as deaf as the man who will not listen[318].

c) Give thanks for your food and the joy of living. If you see no reason for giving thanks, the fault lies in yourself[319].

d) The essential thing is not knowledge, but character[320].

Relationships:

a) We should apply the same standards to ourselves as we do to others. And tolerate others as we tolerate ourself[321].

b) There is only one person who could ever make you happy, and that person is you[322].

Knowledge, wisdom:

a) Those who see into their true nature are instantaneously initiated into all the mystic teachings[323].

b) A person may appear a fool and yet not be one. He may be guarding his wisdom carefully[324].

c) A loving heart is the truest wisdom[325].

d) It is good to rub and polish our brains against those of others[326].

e) Information is useful. Knowledge is Power. Wisdom divines truth[327].

f) If you think you’re 100% right, you’re 100% wrong[328].

Our relationship with God:

a) Whosoever knows himself, knows his lord[329].

b) In the religious life, never take leave of good sense[330].

c) God prefers him who honors the poor to him who worships the wealthy[331].

d) Draw near to God and he will draw near to you[332].

e) Who can know him without contemplation[333]?

Life, the universe & everything:

a) History repeats itself, except when it doesn’t, OR, events follow the existing trend until they don’t[334].

b) War should be a last resort, but that’s rarely the case[335].

c) What is sin? That which your rational mind tells you is wrong[336].

d) Hope is better than many other states of mind[337].

e) We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit[338].

f) Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds[339].

g) You’ll always miss 100% of the shots you don’t take[340].

h) Change your thoughts and you change your world[341].

i) We cannot live by quotes alone.

Conclusion:

While we cannot live by quotes alone and some of these may not resonate with you, humanity touches upon God’s wisdom on a daily basis. Our role is to seek the truth and apply it to our lives.

Question 99: Could the universe exist without God?

I had several debates with myself on whether this questions should be included, and if so, where. After some deep thought[342] I think the logical spot is as the penultimate question. Over the years, believers have presented the majesty, existence and magnificence of the universe as the ultimate proof God exists – surely something this complex and intricate could only be the product of a higher power?

Earlier in this book, I suggested that having created the universe was not a prerequisite for my God. The reasoning is simple: God creating the universe or setting it all in motion isn’t a better explanation than the universe just existing.

If God created the universe, any reasonable skeptic would ask “Who created God?” If God didn’t create the universe, there’re still a few inconvenient questions, like:

a) How did the first matter come into existence?

b) What existed before there was something?

c) Why shouldn’t I cry over spilt milk?

The bottom line is simple – whether God created the universe or not, there are questions about its existence unable to be answered by any stretching or manipulation of our current understanding of matter.

If my God might not have created the universe, I also have to concede the universe could exist without her[343]. However, the cracking of this “chicken and egg” equation ultimately comes down to identifying the true nature of God. God could be essential to the universe’s existence because she:

1) Binds physical matter together with some sort of spiritual glue[344]

2) Implements the cosmic blueprint

3) Some other equally vague and impossible to prove theory

Ultimately, I suspect it doesn’t matter. Whether we believe God created the universe or not, there’ll be two possibilities:

1) We’re right

2) We’re wrong

One side being correct or not will not impact God’s nature or existence.

Conclusion:

If the two explanations for the creation of the universe are equally perplexing, there seems to be an equal possibility that one, both or neither of them are correct. From this base of concerted ignorance we can only conclude it is possible the universe could exist without God, but does it[345]?

Question 100: Does God exist?

With the volume of recent books exhorting the non-existence or death of God, there really wasn’t any potential to ignore this question. While I find the arguments interesting, two important points come to mind:

1) Intelligent arguments by people against established and doctrinal interpretations of God do not preclude her existence.

2) Using scientific method to eliminate God as a viable option has two flaws:

a. The process of evolution from dead stuff to living thinking beings tends support the potential existence of a transcendent entity or being.

b. It may not be the best tool for determining the truth in this instance.

In reality – this is a non-question – the evidence for God’s existence permeates our lives – every church, synagogue, mosque or place of worship signals God’s existence for someone. Every charitable act, word of kindness and show of character driven by religious belief reinforces there being a God. To a certain degree, the starting point has to be:

“We think. Therefore God is.”

Of course, this spurious proof of God doesn’t cut to the heart of the questions for non-believers – they want to know whether God truly exists or whether we created her. To summarize:

1. Believers find God’s existence self-evident and probably don’t need scientific proof to support their belief.

2. Non-believers argue against established interpretations of God and find fundamental flaws convincing them of God’s non-existence

This argument “in two separate rooms[346]” is really the reason for this book. I’m fairly confident that there is a spiritual entity more accomplished than us, which has the potential to enrich our lives and guide our individual and universal development. The form and nature of this being could be:

1) Exactly as described in one or more religious texts

2) Sort of as described in religious texts but sort of not

3) Some sort of “cloud-computing” equivalent in the spiritual world

4) An approximation of the “Force” in Star Wars

5) Nothing like any of the above

My background, my gut and my contemplations lead me to believe there is a God. However, I see many of the flaws flagged by the current wave of non-believers and agree with certain aspects of their arguments. While their perspective leads them to non-belief, I would argue the intelligent points they make offer the potential for re-belief – rigorously examining the teachings and rituals we have created or inherited and determining whether they fit with our understanding of God and our universe.

Conclusion:

I believe a God exists, but she may not look anything like many of our traditional interpretations of her. Debate over God’s existence, when conducted in a constructive manner, can only help us better understand our relationship, or lack thereof, with her. Any God who doesn’t appreciate focused questioning of her being may be on shaky ground already. It’s possible pondering God’s non-existence might lead us to truly appreciate her reality.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

So we’ve asked one hundred questions of my God. While I’m almost certain you’ve had moments of dissension, irritation, disagreement or even offense, I hope you’ve also seen areas of agreement, support and insight. Regardless, the offhanded style of this book aims to open the floor for discussion, not provide answers or absolutes.

Each of us has to choose whether we believe in a God, many Gods or no God. The paths we choose are our right and privilege, as are those of every other soul on the planet. Millions of our ancestors have done the best they could with the information at hand, and so should we.

By exposing you to my God, and my idea of her perspectives, my goal is purely to:

a) Acknowledge there’s opportunity for greater spiritual development

b) Start a conversation

c) Encourage respectful contemplation of all perspectives

d) Encourage ongoing dialogue with your God to determine the “truths” you hold dear[347]

e) Discourage acceptance of doctrine without question

f) Irritate you just enough

g) Show that we might have more common ground than we think

h) Establish the compatibility between science and God

i) Never believe I have all the answers

j) Uncover some questions worthy of rumination

k) Flag my preparedness to change my mind based on compelling arguments or epiphanies

If your God has never been misquoted, presented in the wrong light or maligned through humans claiming affiliation, it’s not my God. If your God is angry, malicious and couldn’t care less about humanity, it’s not my God. If there is only one God, maybe your God is my God. If your God believes in love, honesty, universal citizenship and worthy achievements, maybe your God is my God.

I appreciate you joining me in my ruminations. I hope they contribute something to your own perceptions of God and would be thrilled to hear from you about any additional insights you might like to add. I recognize this is the start of the discussion not the end, and hope for further insights and sharing of opinions in the near future.

And remember, it’s…Justin O’Pinion.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR GOD

One hundred questions are not enough. Below is a list of queries I think might deserve some attention as well. If you have more, please don’t hesitate to send them to me at questions@justinopinion.com and I’ll aim to contemplate them with you.

- Is God Merciful?

- Is morality in or out?

- Does God value charity?

- What does God want from us?

- What does the future hold?

- Should we welcome change?

- Is God forgiving?

- Is there a first tier of values (honesty, love, justice) and second tier (loyalty, honor,?)

- What is humanity’s purpose?

###

About the Author:

Justin O’Pinion was born in the small Irish town of Bruff in Co. Limerick during the twentieth century. Older townsfolk can still recall his first word was “really?” It’s rumored his second word was “why?,” followed closely by “bollocks.”

While Justin’s childhood was entertaining enough, he had always yearned for the opportunity promised by the United States of America. At the ripe old age of 26, he traveled to this potential utopia and was thrilled with the small taste. He returned to his home country and might have forgotten his dream if it weren’t for meeting the delectable Mordana Fling. This North American peach won his heart with the never-to-be-forgotten line, “If you move to North America, I might date you.”

Justin took this to be a clear proposal of marriage and moved to California within a few months. After six months of concerted courting, Mordana Fling was Mordana O’Pinion.

After four years of enjoying all that Silicon Valley had to offer, Justin and Mordana moved to Denver, Colorado, to enjoy the annual 300 days of sunshine, ski, and start a family. With the addition of two beautiful (yes, they look like their mother) and intelligent (got that from her, too) daughters, Irate and Set, the household is never short of O’Pinions.

Connect with Justin online at JustinOPinion.com.

Footnotes

1. Pun intended, but only after some deep reflection.

2. Integrity, Intellect, Indestructibility – patent/copyright pending.

3. Actually, when I think about it, I don’t mind if God’s a fan of the kid but I do mind if God is a fan of the act.

4. And where’s the scientific evidence for that?

5. OK, I made these figures up.

6. Pun not intended until I noticed it and decided to take responsibility

7. I’m going to suggest this is self-evident and self-fulfilling. While the values you choose may not result in a meaningful, satisfying life, pursuing things you don’t value certainly won’t.

8. God-given?

9. We’ll address this later

10. Or only dabble at key moments in history

11. Abraham – Genesis w22:1-24

12. Joshua 6:21

13. As an aside, using some “back of the envelope” math, if our oceans represent the entire universe, Earth isn’t even a fish – it’s less than one water molecule – math available on request – but don’t wait too long – I might lose the envelope!

14. This is especially true given the billions of years we’ve taken to get this far!

15. This implies there has to be a reason the rest of the universe exists which is, of course, an unfair assumption but still a valid question

16. We can ask about humanity later

17. Even if it just makes them run away to fight another day

18. Insert additional emotions if you wish

19. Begging the question of who they might be if there is only one God

20. Primarily because I don’t see God crawling out of bed being a possibility!

21. A current and historic situation

22. Lord Acton – 1887

23. If believing God got you out of bed gets you out of bed, didn’t God get you out of bed?

24. Whether this is due to not having the ability or not existing is irrelevant

25. Whether it’s humanity’s belief or God’s interaction with humanity causing the impact, can be discussed when it matters

26. If you can’t find an innocent victim in one of these examples you’re either not looking very hard or incredibly biased against the targeted victims.

27. I believe this morality can be discovered through introspection, reflection on underlying universal truths and recognition that areas of gray exist. We’ll explore what this means to God’s own values later in this book.

28. This is true even when you consider that Jews, Christians and Muslims appear to claim the same God but in different ways and with different supporting beliefs

29. See the next question and the final question for more on this issue

30. Pun intended

31. Christians, Muslims and Jews making up around 54% of the world’s people (Source: www.adherents.com)

32. And may continue for the foreseeable future

33. My key point being that might be room for revision and reinterpretation based on what we do know about the universe. For those who reject this potential, we only have to look to the Catholic Church to see revisions and reinterpretations of right and wrong – I think we are all entitled to the same opportunity.

34. My apologies for the use of such technical terms

35. Or was there?

36. Joshua 6:21

37. I’d be highly impressed if anyone can think of one I’d find acceptable

38. The Biblical God appears to be most definitely a male

39. I do recognize one example does not invalidate all around it

40. As reported, this can’t be regarded as killing in the process of war – Jericho had already been defeated and all people were killed – old, young, men, women and children

41. As non-physical being, learning seems the most likely form of evolution

42. Seen any depictions of a female God in any mosques, synagogues or churches lately?

43. Apart from an understandable desire to pick up chicks

44. I’ll wait while you get over the shock of this revelation

45. Creating an interesting dilemma for those believers claiming God has a particular sex but regarding sex as only for procreation

46. Which happened to appear in the process of evolution

47. If Mary’s virgin birth is part of your belief system this is not inconsistent with this proposition. I’m not aware of any text or teachings suggesting Mary’s pregnancy involved a sexual act.

48. Yes, once again “maleness” seems to dominate

49. Facetiousness 101

50. This should not suggest each race receives an equal economic, educational or health opportunity – something our commonality should lead us to address.

51. Now there’s a great idea – why haven’t any religions suggested that?

52. And I’m confident many readers will agree!

53. You’d be surprised how hard that is to admit!

54. This would be funny if it wasn’t true. However, discussion of the gaps in my education can be saved for some other day.

55. This would be true whether you were the creator or created.

56. We’ll explore what the next level might be elsewhere in this book.

57. Reverting to complex terms reinforces my scientific rigor

58. Surely a satisfying strategy for the “real men” among us

59. I can’t wait to meet them!

60. It would be cool to assume we’re the first but it would definitely be an assumption

61. Or exactly the same!

62. Based purely on number of adherents

63. Pun intended

64. No disrespect is meant by the quotation marks – it’s up to each individual to decide what the “Word of God” means to them

65. And seems pretty unfair

66. No offense meant by those quotation marks either

67. I’m using this term generically to apply to people who believe in God

68. I’ll include all of humanity for the sake of brevity

69. OK, I think I might have failed on that one

70. Yet.

71. Given E.T.’s arguable intellect and predilection for manmade candy, he may not be the best example

72. Although it does raise some interesting questions ... maybe later

73. Waste being defined as “unnecessary or unconstructive destruction or misuse”

74. Life that is not capable of higher thought

75. This doesn’t mean there couldn’t be higher levels, but what they would involve is beyond me.

76. Through scientific, and hopefully, philosophical advancement

77. It was really tempting to make this acronym TRUTH (The Rampant Universe Theory) but that would assume I know what I’m talking about – which will always be up for debate.

78. It would be misleading to suggest I don’t mean this

79. Probably manifest through a human (pause for surprise)

80. And possibly our own inadequacies or imperfection

81. I’m not sure how much research there is related to this, but I definitely need help on this front!

82. In 2008, a World Bank report suggested almost 80% of humanity lives on less than $10US a day

83. Probably defined by you

84. Usually after something inexplicable or devastating happened

85. Usually because we can’t fathom how it could possibly involve what just happened

86. This number was calculated using the JMIU (Just Make It Up) formula

87. Insert any other implications you wish here

88. There’s nothing like a recycled pun to start your question!

89. Yes, I am assuming my suppositions are correct – you can discount any part you disagree with.

90. This should not be confused with “Source or touchstone for morals and values”

91. This is a God to all, not a chosen few

92. If facetiousness is not your thing, please skip to the next paragraph

93. Internet pun intended

94. But it is cunningly designed to defy the norm

95. Even if it’s only on Earth

96. Or any other human form

97. 10 million (very generous) / 13.75 billion = 1/1375 of day = 62 seconds or thereabouts

98. 6.0 x 10^24 kg / 3 x 10^50 kg from The Physics Factbook, Glenn Elert

99. 238,854 miles to the moon / (156 billion light years (by Robert Roy Britt, Senior Science Writer, www.science.com, 24 May 2004) x miles in a light year (5.8 x 10^12))

100. Christians would claim this has already happened and I’m not prepared to discount this. However, similar claims in today’s modern society would have some interesting hurdles to overcome.

101. Until we get there

102. Use of the word interference reflects a change of flow, we can assume the act is good in some way.

103. Success as defined by the individual, not society

104. IN the context of how it impacts you, not them

105. Given the order the religions were established (Judaism, Christianity, then Islam) the pre-existing religions could claim their God is different but the following religions cannot.

106. I really mean “time of birth” in a historic sense, but how could I ignore the opportunity for some quality rhyming?

107. Pun intended

108. e.g. Nicholas Wade, The Faith Instinct, Penguin, 2009

109. It may be simple because of the process or my analysis skills, who knows!

110. I’m not aware of this opportunity at this time

111. If your answer is “No,” your reason why would be worthy of contemplation

112. Ah, the irony of using the female pronoun!

113. This should not be confused with an educational disadvantage

114. And having children continually inhibited women’s ability to work

115. Yet another irony – a female name acronym being a facilitator of historic discrimination

116. Remember, this doesn’t stop JOE or RUTH rolling the dice against you

117. Religious pun intended

118. While my answer to Question 44 may seem to minimize this option, it still may be very relevant to your interaction with your God.

119. This is a pun for my own amusement – please don’t assume a reflection on my political views!

120. In contrast to my continually rejected requests for a lottery win

121. She’s been pretty reticent over the last thirteen billion years

122. Which shouldn’t be extraordinarily surprising, given it’s my opinion!

123. American Heritage Dictionary – online

124. This doesn’t make them any less legitimate, just harder to prove.

125. Some may argue this is my problem!

126. If your religion has no failures, rethinks, inconsistencies, misguided followers or historic mistakes, you may ignore this observation. I also have a bridge to sell you.

127. American Heritage Dictionary - online

128. Spiderman Movie – How many discussion of God get to quote a superhero movie?

129. Tobin the Cat

130. Pun sort of intended

131. A strong argument for treating rodents with love and affection

132. A funny-looking fish

133. I don’t believe this but it fit well with the LUV theory

134. Her sex is not one of them

135. Although I’m still not that enthused about the concept

136. Depending on your definition of stuff

137. I crack myself up!

138. At a minimum, that would be us

139. Including ourselves

140. Spiderman

141. A Northern Hemisphere example that may be modified for those south of the equator

142. Pun intended

143. As implied by biologists and chemists theorizing on the evolutionary merits of love

144. Which of course does not preclude other passions or loves

145. This doesn’t mean everything is perfect, merely the concept exists in greater strength than previously

146. Or some of the primal instincts accompanying it

147. Whatever they may be

148. www.dictionary.com

149. As reported by someone God said it to or who spoke to someone who passed it on from God or some chain of people eventually leading back to God. If you did get it directly from God, I’d probably go with it.

150. Even Adam was supposedly made from dirt – Genesis 2:7

151. Pun intended

152. This does not mean all humans at the mercy of SOTF are apathetic

153. Any being that can be in multiple places in an instant probably doesn’t!

154. Nice little religious pun!

155. No particular advanced species is being implicated by this statement

156. Eric Clapton – No guarantees he was talking about the same thing as me

157. Amongst various other disadvantages.

158. The Great Pyramid of Giza, Statue of Zeus, Colossus of Rhodes, Temple of Artemis

159. OK, I might have put one of my own in there – sorry.

160. My own hilarity tends to suggest an inverse relationship between wealth and humor. However, I have heard a rumor that more people laugh when rich people tell a joke – a dubious benefit God is probably extremely uninterested in as well.

161. Let Us Pray for Wealth, Dan Mitchell, New York Times, 11/3/2007

162. Various translations of Matthew 5:5 in the Bible

163. Currently transmittal by voice utilizes physical vibrations, sight uses light, taste uses chemicals, touch is physical and smell and taste use chemical reactions.

164. Which I may have already done but I’m still going to “live on the edge” and try to give a reason why.

165. Who’s responsible for this?

166. Yeah, I just did that for my own entertainment

167. Acts of God excluded – ironic use of “Acts of God” intended

168. Proverbs 16:18 – The Bible

169. Saint Bernard – Poor Man’s College

170. Jefferson Davis – Laura Moncur’s Motivational Quotations

171. Golda Meir – Rand Lindsly’s Quotations

172. This shouldn’t be confused with her supporters big-noting her

173. Apologies to the Divinyls

174. While these could be driven by instinct rather than thought, the act is still selfless

175. This should not be regarded as generic indictment of all athletes and CEOs, just a recognition there are selfish athletes and CEOs out there

176. e.g. Jesus, Mohammed, Gandhi, Buddha, Confucius, Martin Luther King, etc.

177. Pun also intended

178. Pun intended

179. Hopefully, I’m referring to us but in reality “God only knows!”

180. I hear some guy named Darwin might have taken a shot at writin git

181. http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/SOTU00.sotu-text.html

182. Probably by Socrates

183. Ensuring the basic levels of nutrition, shelter, health and education

184. Merriam-Webster online

185. Note the subtle use of religious punnery

186. e.g. Judaism to Christianity, Christianity to Islam

187. e.g. views on sexism and racism

188. e.g. Mohammed, Jesus

189. A self-evident reality but you get my point

190. Survival of the Fittest – if you’d forgotten

191. This could also be phrased “the last shall be first” but I find that too confusing

192. Which it probably is

193. This could be physical strength, political or military power – or some other “strength” for that matter

194. If one of these cults turns out to be the “only ones who got it right,” I reserve the right to apologize profusely to them

195. As designated by the media pundits

196. Anyone heard of Zimbabwe, Myanmar or North Korea?

197. I’d suggest we might have got to this point a bit faster if she had!

198. If I’m wrong on this one, the universe will sort this out over the next few billion years and I’ll happily admit to my mistake at this time. In the meantime, I’ll stick to this theory.

199. These are examples, and while I have opinions on their merits, the point is these beliefs have evolved from the believer’s upbringing or environment

200. Or any measurement of merit

201. I’m not privy to which religion has this rule but you get the idea

202. A Year of Living Biblically, by A.J. Jacobs (2007), gives a decent overview of this

203. The Pope’s recent comments on condom use would be another example

204. JOE – Joys of Evolution, RUTH – Rampant Universe Theory

205. This is not to suggest this was Moses’ only contribution

206. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/integrity

207. And don’t count on me getting it right any time soon

208. Who would have such a preposterous idea? <grin>

209. This may be significantly influenced by the nature of my household, and may not be reflective of God’s value system at all

210. Although I’d hope there might be a little common ground!

211. I’d like to have three versions of this book: R – Raw, the basic thoughts on paper for all to critique; RR – Raw & Referenced, the basic thoughts backed up by religious teachings and quotes wherever possible; and RRR – Raw, Referenced then Revised, the RR version but incorporating the changes created by articulate arguments from people who disagree with me.

212. I’m going to copyright this because I’m sure no one’s suggested this before

213. If you’ve never lied, think back to the last time you were lied to. If you think you’ve never been lied to, pay more attention!

214. Some sins are regarded by various religions as excluding you from heaven, other seemingly more heinous crimes can be forgiven

215. Even on their deathbed

216. Or you’re the only one

217. Anyone want responsibility for identifying the actual moment?

218. Or woman

219. I am, of course, assuming heterosexual sex, because it seems to make babies!

220. A legendary Canadian urologist

221. I can think of a couple of scenarios when this might not be true but it won’t affect the discussion

222. I can also think of scenarios where this might not be true but we’ll stick to the vanilla situation

223. We are also assuming that when a being is no longer subject to SOTF it should, as part of its ongoing evolution, move on to more complex concepts of right and wrong

224. Raw, Revised, Referenced – where other opinions and references are provided

225. This could be emotional or physical, depending on the nature of the entity

226. We should never discount the possibility they’re secretly plotting against us!

227. Supposedly we fit this description

228. Read: not caused by the supposedly advanced life-forms

229. I’m going to assume plants don’t have the capacity for this

230. Funnily enough this means “Hand to Hand” but I digress

231. If they’re not being used constructively, we’re already infringing on their first right

232. Candidates might be the right not to be eaten by humans, the right to avoid experimentation or typs of experimentation, etc.

233. This is probably true for both the past and present

234. The ages for driving, drinking, working, etc. can vary significantly across the planet

235. We can debate what this might look like for some time – it’s probably a good question for God. I wonder if someone will ask it?

236. And this may vary from child to child

237. e.g. drinking, driving, voting

238. The difference between rights and privileges is worth of significant discussion. The first aim should probably be a right while the second, due to JOE and RUTH, may be a privilege (but it would be cool if it were a right).

239. There may be other criteria for graduation, but we can address those elsewhere

240. Actually, even if our God isn’t, the responsibility we have to our children remains.

241. Other than to create more wealth

242. Well, maybe not the last one

243. There’s nothing wrong with choosing this, but having no choice limits the opportunities for humanity and the individual

244. The ability to do more than work of survival every waking hour

245. http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics/#abuse-conseq

246. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

247. a) Remedial classes are definitely a possibility, but eternal damnation seems excessive; b) Yes, pun intended

248. See Question 49 for more on this

249. OK, I may be exaggerating slightly

250. And seems to have worked extremely well.

251. Which is probably very little

252. If sex is not of great interest to God, and to the degree it is “only” a physical experience, it may not be a significant contributor to transcendence. However, an associated non-physical component could contribute – who knows? Maybe God?

253. Unless they have a specific desire for one or the other

254. Considering my role in choosing the questions, I should probably take a good hard look at myself!

255. Even if it’s only within the group!

256. Marriage does seem to be an adult concept

257. Mordana O’Pinion

258. An earthly construct

259. We’ll explore this once we have agreement on a few simpler concerns

260. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_longest_marriages

261. Outrageous, I know!

262. Very subtle pun

263. Note the classic baseball pun!

264. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

265. And many others not represented

266. Anyone against this?

267. This is known as hypocrisy and is quite irritating

268. This is not as daft as it might first seem – it’s a chance to assess whether you made the amount of effort you’d expect, looked after your health and education as you’d aspire, gave yourself positive reinforcement, etc.

269. And various other religious groups – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution

270. And reserve the right to do so at a later date

271. However dubious it might seem on first examination

272. This should not preclude the potential for great things after death, but without direct experience of this phenomenon, I’ll leave assessment of these activities for someone else

273. This might be scientific, spiritual, emotional, etc.

274. I suspect this might be limited to things you can control. You will not be held accountable for supernova, extinctions on other planets or meteor hits – unless you are responsible.

275. This is not to suggest God and the universe are interchangeable – merely the potential for multiple paths to God and spiritual transcendence

276. The breadth of your definition of your community might reflect your views of the universe, but the nature of your contribution is probably more important than the scale

277. My apologies to Mark Twain

278. That couldn’t happen, could it?

279. Apologies to REM

280. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity

281. This does not account for leap years (even before they were invented) and was rounded up by 500 days for my own amusement

282. If we can, then it won’t be the end and we don’t have to worry about it

283. Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction Event – 65M years x 365.25 days = 23.7B days

284. I may be practicing a little anthropomorphism but you get the idea (I believe it was Cyrus the Stegosaurus but I may be misattributing)

285. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy 67.2 x 365.25 = 24,545

286. Anywhere between 2,000 and 24,000 or more

287. Because this book is about God, we’ll focus on these kinds of beliefs but the discussion probably has some merit in other forums of belief as well

288. Yes, this means I made it up for my entertainment

289. If my god doesn’t value me as an individual, I should probably examine the merits of any affiliation with her

290. If for no other reason than it seems an extraordinary waste

291. It’s a victory of physical force over intellectual strength

292. Even if everyone was “guilty” it regards the remainder of their lives as worthless – an unlikely perspective for a God with the values mine holds dear

293. It’s hard to win hearts and minds when you keep killing them or their relatives

294. Also, after a good 15 minutes of contemplation, I still can’t think of a situation where offence led to a worthwhile spiritual development

295. Or some other positively life-changing opportunity

296. Or act as a complement to

297. And may never happen

298. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/22/lifes-building-blocks-surprising-meteorite/

299. Apologies to Neil Armstrong

300. Please note my expectation of being in the group left behind!

301. OK, I may be projecting my utopian fantasies upon the global populace

302. I may just be creating false hope for myself but I’ll still go with this concept

303. Obviously, this is for you to interpret but I’d think respect, love and honesty might come into play

304. Yes it could be more succinct

305. As we evolve, I suspect our idea of “a bloody good reason” will evolve with us

306. Food might be a very good reason, until technology removes this need

307. This list of justification is probably not a long one.

308. Until, and after, these rights are ubiquitous, we should still cherish and nurture them

309. Your smartness, position, relative importance, or lack thereof, has no impact on the validity of your argument. The addition of vitriol doesn’t either, but it reduces your chances of being heard.

310. There’s nothing wrong with wealth, but achieving it is not a victory in itself.

311. Also be prepared to ask whether this trade-off is a good one

312. Having no opportunity is a subjective perspective, err on the side of optimism

313. Even as it applies to a single life

314. We have a responsibility to protect ourselves from obvious threats. God may interfere on occasion, but not when we could have resolved the issue on our own.

315. A similar sentiment, but also a reinforcement of the spiritual nature of God’s participation

316. Life is complex enough to make the unintended consequences of our actions difficult to perceive. In an increasingly interconnected society, a little forethought might avoid great distress.

317. Confucius: Analects – The Little Book of Confucian Wisdom, Brian Bocking, Element Books, 1998

318. http://thinkexist.com/quotes/jewish_proverb/2.html

319. Tecumseh, Shawnee – The Little Book of Native American Wisom, Steven McFadden, Element Books, 1994

320. Joseph Le Conte http://www.inspirational-quotes.info/character.html

321. Traditional – The Little Book of Confucian Wisdom, Brian Bocking, Element Books, 1998

322. David Burns, Intimate Connections http://www.inspirational-quotes.info/happiness.html

323. Zen Graffiti – The Little Book of Buddhist Wisdom, Richard and Diana St Ruth, Element Books, 1997

324. Zengetsu – The Little Book of Zen Wisdom, John Baldock, Element Books, 1994

325. Charles Dickens http://www.inspirational-quotes.info/words-wisdom.html

326. Michel de Montaigne http://www.inspirational-quotes.info/thoughts.html

327. Whether we’re debating an issue or trying to perceive God’s views, it’s important to try to identify where we are along the Information – Wisdom continuum.

328. Even if you are right all the time, a little humility is always appreciated.

329. Hadith – The Little Book of Sufi Wisdom, John Baldock, Element Books, 1995

330. Phiroz Mehta – The Little Book of Buddhist Wisdom, Richard and Diana St Ruth, Element Books, 1997

331. The Instructions of Amenmope: Chapter 28 – The Little Book of Egyptian Wisdom, Naomi Ozaniec, Element Books, 1997

332. The Bible – James 4:8

333. Teachings of Hinduism, Ajanta Chakravarty, Rider Books, 1997

334. We can learn from both the consistencies and surprises thrown at us by RUTH and JOE

335. War appeals to some very basic instincts – as we become a better global community the need for war should lessen – we don’t seem to be there just yet.

336. Teachings of Hinduism, Ajanta Chakravarty, Rider Books, 1997

337. Teachings of Hinduism, Ajanta Chakravarty, Rider Books, 1997

338. Aristotle http://www.inspirational-quotes.info/motivational-quotes.html

339. Albert Einstein http://www.inspirational-quotes.info/motivational-quotes.html

340. Wayne Gretzky

341. Norman Vincent Peale http://www.inspirational-quotes.info/thoughts.html

342. At least thirty seconds of concentration

343. Or do I?

344. I’m not actually proposing this as a theory but who knows?

345. See the next question for our thrilling conclusion!

346. Both parties argue their cases from such disparate perspectives, there’s no common framework to create a genuine debate

347. I’ll do the same with my God.

Table of Contents

PART ONE: GETTING THE JOB

THE NATURE OF GOD

Question 1: How do you become God?

Question 2: Where is God?

Question 3: How much power is enough?

Question 4: Does God impact the physical world?

Question 5: Did God create the universe, Earth, or your back yard?

Question 6: Does God really give a damn?

Question 7: Can God experience emotion?

Question 8: Can God experience pain?

Question 9: Is God lonely?

Question 10: Is God an egomaniac?

Question 11: Is God fallible?

Question 12: Can God influence outcomes?

Question 13: Can there be more than one God?

Question 14: Was God Created?

Question 15: Can God evolve?

Question 16: Is God Male or Female?

Question 17: What sexual orientation would God be?

Question 18: Is God black, white or some other shade?

Question 19: What does God look like?

Question 20: Does God know everything?

Question 21: If God evolved, is there any implication to this?

Question 22: Is God Universal?

Question 23: Is God Good or Evil?

Question 24: How would God define right and wrong?

Question 25: Is God balanced by any other force in the universe?

Question 26: Is God a random firing of neurons?

Question 27: Is God in control?

Question 28: Can God see the future?

Question 29: What is God’s purpose?

Question 30: Who has the authority to talk on God’s behalf?

Question 31: What qualifies us to have a relationship with God?

PART TWO: GOD & HUMANITY

Question 32: Are Homo sapiens God’s chosen species?

Question 33: Were we created in God’s Image?

Question 34: Was the universe created for mankind?

Question 35: Why doesn’t God appear to us?

Question 36: What’s the deal with this “free will” thing?

Question 37: Does God provide a level playing field?

Question 38: Whose God is right?

Question 39: Why should there be tolerance of all perspectives?

Question 40: Does Science threaten God?

Question 41: Are fossils real?

Question 42: Is God a racist or nationalist?

Question 43: Is God a sexist?

Question 44: Does God want to be worshipped?

Question 45: Should God be communed with?

Question 46: Can prayers be answered?

Question 47: Are there miracles?

Question 48: How do God and morality interact?

Question 49: How do we get to heaven?

Question 50: Does God uphold the laws of the land?

Question 51: Is this book blasphemy?

Question 52: What would God feel about our use of creation?

Question 53: Is God in hiding?

PART THREE: WHAT DOES GOD VALUE?

Question 54: Does God value anything at all?

Question 55: Does God value life?

Question 56: Does God value honesty?

Question 57: Does God value love?

Question 58: Does God value evolution?

Question 59: Does God value blind faith?

Question 60: Does God value potential or performance?

Question 61: Does God value time?

Question 62: Does God value monuments to her greatness?

Question 63: Does God value wealth?

Question 64: Does God value contribution to universal knowledge?

Question 65: Does God value caring for others?

Question 66: Does God value humility?

Question 67: Does God value selfishness or selflessness?

Question 68: Does God value power?

Question 69: Does God value diversity?

Question 70: Does God value tolerance?

Question 71: Does God value persistence?

Question 72: Does God value admitting you’re wrong?

Question 73: Does God value justice?

Question 74: Does God value ritual and rules?

Question 75: Does God value breaking the rules?

Question 76: Does God value integrity?

Question 77: Does God value miscellaneous items?

PART FOUR: SO WHAT?

Question 78: What’s the deal with sin?

Question 79: Is morality a moving target?

Question 80: What’s the deal with birth control?

Question 81: What’s the deal with abortion?

Question 82: Do fauna or flora have rights?

Question 83: What responsibility do we have for our environment?

Question 84: What responsibility do we have for and to our children?

Question 85: Is economic growth a goal in itself?

Question 86: How important is education?

Question 87: Will I get my rewards in heaven, my come-uppance in hell or something else?

Question 88: What’s this mean for sex?

Question 89: Is marriage important?

Question 90: I’m a citizen of what?

Question 91: How does this “do unto others” thing play out?

Question 92: Is everyone else just an idiot?

Question 93: What is the true measure of a successful life?

Question 94: Is the end nigh?

Question 95: Should I be prepared to die for my beliefs?

Question 96: What if we’re not the smartest kids on the block?

Question 97: Any suggestions for rules to live by?

Question 98: Phrases to live by?

Question 99: Could the universe exist without God?

Question 100: Does God exist?

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR GOD

About the Author

Footnotes