God, gods, or none of the above?

[Greylorn Ell]

This experimental thread addresses the God-concept from two opposing perspectives. Unlike the usual believer vs. atheist, both of us agree that our universe is a product of intelligence-- i.e. that there is a Creator. We differ only in our understanding of his, hers, its, or their nature.

This thread invites comments to either of us. Constructive, thoughtful comments will be appreciated over argumentative rants and knee-jerk reactions. One of us is a genuinely Christian person who will probably reply kindly to such rants and reactions. The other will treat them as they deserve.

Let us begin.

A Monotheist God Concept

My proposition is simple. The idea of the existence of the Supreme Being is rationally coherent, scientifically tenable and a very powerful way of explaining the way the World is. Granted that there are always questions to be asked (how else could it be when we are discussing the most supremely complex Entity in existence), God is the best explanation for the way things really are.

Belief in God provides a reasonable explanation for the unreasonable orderliness of our universe. It best explains why the laws upon which science depends exist and are discoverable to us. And it provides an essential moral context for the legitimate uses of our technologies and modern science's rapidly extending powers.

In addition, the Biblical account of human nature is a superbly accurate description of the sociological and historical facts we're all used to seeing every day. Moreover it provides the best explanation for the existence of evil, for human conscience, and for the reality of super-scientific entities widely held to be authentic, such as values, morality, consciousness, intellection, rights, justice and the human soul.

So my position is that there is no advance to be made on the conception of the monotheistic God by any of the alternatives currently on offer, such as Atheism or Polytheism.

I am certain that the universe in which we live was created, intelligently and deliberately-- but not all of it. Energy, the stuff from which all forms of our reality are constructed, cannot be created or destroyed. This is a well-tested principle of physics.

Thus, no "God" could have created energy. Why should he? Would a potter strive to create the clay for his pots when it already lies beneath his feet?

I propose not that there is no God, but that the God defined by monotheistic religions is a hypothetical concept that does not work out well when applied to reality. That this hypothetical God is not omniscient is shown clearly in the Old Testament. If God really knew what jerks the humans he created would become, why would he have created them?

The microbiologist Michael Behe uses clear science to demonstrate that biological life cannot have evolved from random Darwinistic processes. He produces clear science-based evidence for Intelligent Design, but does not attempt to identify the designer, or designers.

This is our challenge. I propose to abandon the traditional omnipotent, omniscient God-concept in favor of multiple creators, each with limited capabilities. This hypothesis solves most problems with respect to the initial and ongoing creation processes. Tossing in the idea that the creators did not create the human soul solves the remaining problems.

[A_Seagull]

My proposition is simple. The idea of the existence of the Supreme Being is rationally coherent, scientifically tenable and a very powerful way of explaining the way the World is.

No it is isn't, as far as I am concerned it 'explains' nothing.

Granted that there are always questions to be asked (how else could it be when we are discussing the most supremely complex Entity in existence), God is the best explanation for the way things really are.


Really!! What alternatives have you considered?

Belief in God provides a reasonable explanation for the unreasonable orderliness of our universe.

Ditto!

It best explains why the laws upon which science depends exist and are discoverable to us. And it provides an essential moral context for the legitimate uses of our technologies and modern science's rapidly extending powers.

Nonsense

In addition, the Biblical account of human nature is a superbly accurate description of the sociological and historical facts we're all used to seeing every day.

What historical account? Do you mean the myths of Adam and Eve?

Moreover it provides the best explanation for the existence of evil, for human conscience, and for the reality of super-scientific entities widely held to be authentic, such as values, morality, consciousness, intellection, rights, justice and the human soul.

No it doesn't!! Again, what alternatives have you considered?

So my position is that there is no advance to be made on the conception of the monotheistic God by any of the alternatives currently on offer, such as Atheism or Polytheism.

/quote]

The conception of gods of any form is a non-explanation. It 'explains' nothing. It only generates myths and stories that can only be considered sensible by children.

[marjoram_blues]

This experimental thread addresses the God-concept from two opposing perspectives

This thread invites comments to either of us. Constructive, thoughtful comments will be appreciated over argumentative rants and knee-jerk reactions

Attracted to respond, not by the subject matter but by the word 'experimental'.
Given the introduction to 'experimental philosophy' ( see PN article by Richard Baron), I'm pondering if philosophy of anything (religion or otherwise) is better when it has an 'experimental' edge.

That is, not as per wiki definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment
'An experiment is an orderly procedure carried out with the goal of verifying, refuting, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis. Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated. Experiments vary greatly in their goal and scale, but always rely on repeatable procedure and logical analysis of the results. There also exist natural experimental studies'.


Rather, a write and see attitude...based on intuitive responses. Knee-jerk replies might not be what you desire but what you get and might not be so very bad?

As for the thread title - my intuition is 'none of the above'. And I can't give reasons for that. It just is.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are going about the problem in completely the wrong way.
If you are going to assume that the Universe is the result of "intelligent" design, then to characterise that intelligence, you can only infer from the character of Nature.

You seem to have started by comparing historical versions of god , one with the other, which date from times in which our understanding of the vastness of the universe, and the details of its structure were very poorly understood.

It seems to me that, given our improved understanding, we are much better placed to understand the volition and purpose of "god/gods/entity" through reference to Nature.

So what kind of God, places intelligent humans with a fear of death, but with the certain knowledge of death; that designs elegant and terrible diseases which cause maximal suffering.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

My theory of god is neither atheistic nor theistic in nature. My theory has no agenda to convert anyone, nor do I hold dear these beliefs. I do not hold these truths as propaganda, only what I have come to observe.

My theory is that "God" is only intelligent in the sense that we perceive it as such. That is, God is Nature, and as we transform as part of Nature we align with God. Is an ant less intelligent than a human? Ants are nature also, to an ant reality seems real to their experience. We cannot understand an ant, and ant cannot understand us. If an ant could understand us, it would cease to be an ant, and would be instead human.

Intelligence is a misleading term. Intelligence, like science, are matching games, simply Nature matching itself to itself, creating a feedback loop of sorts. A=A, 2+2=4, it is nature simply matching nature.

It is easy to say a God being creates out of need, out of desire, but these are misleading terms as well. It creates because it just does, because the void causes a feeling, and causes action to create. A god could not perceive the universe because the universe is pain, pain is what we reject, a god subdivides itself and creates what we call pain, which is the natural order and chaos of the universe. The God wishes to delude itself and become nothing, the universe causes things which exist yet do not wish to. Existence is the passing and changing of light. Feelings are light (electrical signals) time is change, moments are defined by change. Without change there is no moment, no experience. The universe does not create but changes from form to form. A house is but a layer of bricks. My question is does light travelling at 60% c behave the same way as 100% c light.

[David Handeye]

My theory of god is neither atheistic nor theistic in nature. My theory has no agenda to convert anyone, nor do I hold dear these beliefs. I do not hold these truths as propaganda, only what I have come to observe.

My theory is that "God" is only intelligent in the sense that we perceive it as such. That is, God is Nature, and as we transform as part of Nature we align with God. Is an ant less intelligent than a human? Ants are nature also, to an ant reality seems real to their experience. We cannot understand an ant, and ant cannot understand us. If an ant could understand us, it would cease to be an ant, and would be instead human.

Intelligence is a misleading term. Intelligence, like science, are matching games, simply Nature matching itself to itself, creating a feedback loop of sorts. A=A, 2+2=4, it is nature simply matching nature.

It is easy to say a God being creates out of need, out of desire, but these are misleading terms as well. It creates because it just does, because the void causes a feeling, and causes action to create. A god could not perceive the universe because the universe is pain, pain is what we reject, a god subdivides itself and creates what we call pain, which is the natural order and chaos of the universe. The God wishes to delude itself and become nothing, the universe causes things which exist yet do not wish to. Existence is the passing and changing of light. Feelings are light (electrical signals) time is change, moments are defined by change. Without change there is no moment, no experience. The universe does not create but changes from form to form. A house is but a layer of bricks. My question is does light travelling at 60% c behave the same way as 100% c light.

but what did you write?
You wrote, God is nature.
Then you wrote, a God could not perceive the universe, as the universe is pain.
Then you wrote, God creates what we call pain.
Then you wrote, the universe does not create, but changes from form to form.

Now, according to your observations,
the universe, that is pain, is created by God, but God is nature, so that pain is created by nature, which is God, who creates pain, that is the universe.
Finally God creates the universe.

You started writing that your theory was neithet atheistic nor theistic, but I think you are a bit confused.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

My theory of god is neither atheistic nor theistic in nature. My theory has no agenda to convert anyone, nor do I hold dear these beliefs. I do not hold these truths as propaganda, only what I have come to observe.

My theory is that "God" is only intelligent in the sense that we perceive it as such. That is, God is Nature, and as we transform as part of Nature we align with God. Is an ant less intelligent than a human? Ants are nature also, to an ant reality seems real to their experience. We cannot understand an ant, and ant cannot understand us. If an ant could understand us, it would cease to be an ant, and would be instead human.

Intelligence is a misleading term. Intelligence, like science, are matching games, simply Nature matching itself to itself, creating a feedback loop of sorts. A=A, 2+2=4, it is nature simply matching nature.

It is easy to say a God being creates out of need, out of desire, but these are misleading terms as well. It creates because it just does, because the void causes a feeling, and causes action to create. A god could not perceive the universe because the universe is pain, pain is what we reject, a god subdivides itself and creates what we call pain, which is the natural order and chaos of the universe. The God wishes to delude itself and become nothing, the universe causes things which exist yet do not wish to. Existence is the passing and changing of light. Feelings are light (electrical signals) time is change, moments are defined by change. Without change there is no moment, no experience. The universe does not create but changes from form to form. A house is but a layer of bricks. My question is does light travelling at 60% c behave the same way as 100% c light.

but what did you write?
You wrote, God is nature.
Then you wrote, a God could not perceive the universe, as the universe is pain.
Then you wrote, God creates what we call pain.
Then you wrote, the universe does not create, but changes from form to form.

Now, according to your observations,
the universe, that is pain, is created by God, but God is nature, so that pain is created by nature, which is God, who creates pain, that is the universe.
Finally God creates the universe.

You started writing that your theory was neithet atheistic nor theistic, but I think you are a bit confused.

It's an artifact of the english language, by create I mean the common understanding of the word, when someone builds legos they call it 'creating something' even though it is really matter reorganizing itself, which is not really organization at all but chaos matching chaos, causing 'alignment". Light energy passing by and the nothing (sentience) viewing itself pass by, and matter (matter can transform into light, therefore it is light also.)

The universe is pain. Pain is something we reject. The universe is so large and so full of pain no Being could or would perceive it. My opinion is when we experience pain we open ourselves to the intensity that is the universe. Pain is something we reject, one man's pain is another ones pleasure if he chooses to embrace it. The universe is not embracable, there is nothing to embrace.

[Greylorn Ell]

This experimental thread addresses the God-concept from two opposing perspectives

This thread invites comments to either of us. Constructive, thoughtful comments will be appreciated over argumentative rants and knee-jerk reactions

Attracted to respond, not by the subject matter but by the word 'experimental'.
Given the introduction to 'experimental philosophy' ( see PN article by Richard Baron), I'm pondering if philosophy of anything (religion or otherwise) is better when it has an 'experimental' edge.

That is, not as per wiki definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment
'An experiment is an orderly procedure carried out with the goal of verifying, refuting, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis. Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated. Experiments vary greatly in their goal and scale, but always rely on repeatable procedure and logical analysis of the results. There also exist natural experimental studies'.


Rather, a write and see attitude...based on intuitive responses. Knee-jerk replies might not be what you desire but what you get and might not be so very bad?

As for the thread title - my intuition is 'none of the above'. And I can't give reasons for that. It just is.

Marjoram,

Nice to hear from you again, and thanks for being our first non-truculent responder.

I really appreciate your thoughts about experimentation. I've been doing it my entire life, some formally in physics, engineering, astronomy, biochem, etc. Of course, lots of personal and social experimentation. I believe strongly that we should experiment with all things, including the laws that governments establish.

Philosophy suffers, IMO, from lack of experimentation. It validation seems to come from authority figures rather than results. I tried to take that into account when engineering my peculiar metaphysical theories. They were derived from empirical and experimental data, and can be scientifically verified.

Knee-jerk replies are merely reflections of a pre-programmed brain that will not allow anything in that conflicts with its programming. It is a complete waste of time trying to converse with such people.

Your "none of the above" choice has a nice sense of honesty to it, because you offered it without reasons or rancor. I hope that you observe this thread as it progresses and contribute when you feel like doing so. Thanks, and best regards,

Greylorn

[Immanuel Can]

Dear Graylorn:

I will gladly take up your invitation to experiment freely with the implications of this idea that a Creator or some sort of creators, or some creatorial entity yet to be defined exists.

While it appears there is no end of the interlocutors prepared to question this hypothesis, my suggestion is that we let them do it elsewhere. For both you and I are content, for the present experiment, to get past this stage-one question in order to get the chance to address the stage-two concerns. Those disinclined to accept our hypothesis can view the entire experiment as mere heuristics if they wish. But unless we bypass the level-one question, we would have to await a universal solution there before proceeding.

I think we both think there are interesting second-level questions here. So for the awareness of others commenting, please understand that we are engaging each other on the implications of accepting the idea of a Creator or creators, not debating the original notion itself. A word to the wise is sufficient, and I'm sure you will all understand the distinction.

Greylorn, let me make, if I may, a few preliminary responses to you opening position, along with the invitation for you to question me likewise.

I am certain that the universe in which we live was created, intelligently and deliberately-- but not all of it. Energy, the stuff from which all forms of our reality are constructed, cannot be created or destroyed. This is a well-tested principle of physics.

Thus, no "God" could have created energy. Why should he? Would a potter strive to create the clay for his pots when it already lies beneath his feet?

I think I'm in partial agreement here. But I'm not quite sure about the reasons you adduce, and here's why. If the "clay" (energy) pre-existed the potter, then which is the ultimate reality -- the Potter, or the clay? Does not your account, then, make the truly supreme being (the truly original reality and source of all things) out to be energy itself?

I propose not that there is no God, but that the God defined by monotheistic religions is a hypothetical concept that does not work out well when applied to reality. That this hypothetical God is not omniscient is shown clearly in the Old Testament. If God really knew what jerks the humans he created would become, why would he have created them?

Maybe this is one where you can take me to task. 2,000 years of Christian thought has devoted a lot of ink to this...and me, I have given a little of my poor brain power to it as well. But it's an excellent question, and we can kick it around a long time.

...I propose to abandon the traditional omnipotent, omniscient God-concept in favor of multiple creators, each with limited capabilities. This hypothesis solves most problems with respect to the initial and ongoing creation processes.

My thought here would be this: does this not create the old polytheistic problem? That is, if "god" means one of multiple beings, then there is, by definition, no Supreme Being. There are only more or less powerful super beings. Moreover, these super beings are not "God" in the monotheistic sense at all, but rather a sort of super-powered-alien...a set of contingent beings more powerful than humans but far less powerful than any Supreme Being would be, and not a necessary Being, as He would be.

And if so, we might ask ourselves, what are they "contingent" upon?

The ancient Greeks would have said their gods were contingent products of the Titans; but then, they also predicted the fall of their gods and the end of all things as a result. So did the Norse: they called it Ragnarok...the day when the snake coiled around the world wakes up and devours all...gods included.

It would seem to me that whatever these beings are contingent upon then becomes our account of the ultimate Reality, the God behind the gods. But if the ultimate reality is the God behind the gods, then does not the existence of these intermediate gods become somewhat absurd and unnecessary? And just as you raise the issue of why God would create "human jerks," as you so delightfully put it, are we not faced the question of why an Ultimate Creative Force would bother creating inferior, intermediate gods at all?

Finally,

Tossing in the idea that the creators did not create the human soul solves the remaining problems.

But does it? Or does it multiply the problems? If the human soul was not created by the intermediate gods, then from whence should we say it came? Should we suppose it pre-exists the multiple gods? Is IT perhaps the necessary being? Is IT the conception of God under your system of thought?

Should we pick at the threads one at a time? I leave it in your capable hands as to where we shall go next in our conversation. Thanks for hearing me out. I eagerly await your contribution.

Yours,

IC

[Greylorn Ell]

You are going about the problem in completely the wrong way.
If you are going to assume that the Universe is the result of "intelligent" design, then to characterise that intelligence, you can only infer from the character of Nature.

You seem to have started by comparing historical versions of god , one with the other, which date from times in which our understanding of the vastness of the universe, and the details of its structure were very poorly understood.

It seems to me that, given our improved understanding, we are much better placed to understand the volition and purpose of "god/gods/entity" through reference to Nature.

So what kind of God, places intelligent humans with a fear of death, but with the certain knowledge of death; that designs elegant and terrible diseases which cause maximal suffering.

H.C.

Your assessment of how we "are going about the problem" is based upon an incorrect assumption on your part, namely that you actually know how we are going about the problem. This is not possible, since neither I.C. nor myself know that. We're "winging it."

I don't see that we've done any comparison of gods, yet, so please be less anxious to make things up.

I.C. and I have different approaches to the creation question, agreeing only that the universe is created. I will not speak for him except on things we have personally discussed and clarified. He will present his own thoughts as this thread progresses. However, I pretty much agree with you about nature. My creator-concept is derived entirely from nature. Not simply biological stuff, but mainly physics.

Before answering your last excellent question, it would be good to know if you make the usual assumption that God created both the human body and soul. I do not.

If you know anything about the military, you know that the U.S. and Royal Marine boot camps are not for sissies. The men train hard and suffer, growing stronger in the process. The training is intended to be worse than battleground experiences so as to maximize their chances of returning from warfare alive.

Consider the possibility that the soul ("beon" is my word for it) is not a created entity, and is being trained for independent conscious life in a universe opposed to that.

Greylorn

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

You are going about the problem in completely the wrong way.
If you are going to assume that the Universe is the result of "intelligent" design, then to characterise that intelligence, you can only infer from the character of Nature.

You seem to have started by comparing historical versions of god , one with the other, which date from times in which our understanding of the vastness of the universe, and the details of its structure were very poorly understood.

It seems to me that, given our improved understanding, we are much better placed to understand the volition and purpose of "god/gods/entity" through reference to Nature.

So what kind of God, places intelligent humans with a fear of death, but with the certain knowledge of death; that designs elegant and terrible diseases which cause maximal suffering.

H.C.

Your assessment of how we "are going about the problem" is based upon an incorrect assumption on your part, namely that you actually know how we are going about the problem. This is not possible, since neither I.C. nor myself know that. We're "winging it."

I don't see that we've done any comparison of gods, yet, so please be less anxious to make things up.

I.C. and I have different approaches to the creation question, agreeing only that the universe is created. I will not speak for him except on things we have personally discussed and clarified. He will present his own thoughts as this thread progresses. However, I pretty much agree with you about nature. My creator-concept is derived entirely from nature. Not simply biological stuff, but mainly physics.

Before answering your last excellent question, it would be good to know if you make the usual assumption that God created both the human body and soul. I do not.

If you know anything about the military, you know that the U.S. and Royal Marine boot camps are not for sissies. The men train hard and suffer, growing stronger in the process. The training is intended to be worse than battleground experiences so as to maximize their chances of returning from warfare alive.

Consider the possibility that the soul ("beon" is my word for it) is not a created entity, and is being trained for independent conscious life in a universe opposed to that.

Greylorn

Soldiers are trained for war. War is hell. You're saying our purpose in life is to get used to suffering so when we die we go to hell?

[Greylorn Ell]

My theory of god is neither atheistic nor theistic in nature. My theory has no agenda to convert anyone, nor do I hold dear these beliefs. I do not hold these truths as propaganda, only what I have come to observe.

My theory is that "God" is only intelligent in the sense that we perceive it as such. That is, God is Nature, and as we transform as part of Nature we align with God. Is an ant less intelligent than a human? Ants are nature also, to an ant reality seems real to their experience. We cannot understand an ant, and ant cannot understand us. If an ant could understand us, it would cease to be an ant, and would be instead human.

Intelligence is a misleading term. Intelligence, like science, are matching games, simply Nature matching itself to itself, creating a feedback loop of sorts. A=A, 2+2=4, it is nature simply matching nature.

It is easy to say a God being creates out of need, out of desire, but these are misleading terms as well. It creates because it just does, because the void causes a feeling, and causes action to create. A god could not perceive the universe because the universe is pain, pain is what we reject, a god subdivides itself and creates what we call pain, which is the natural order and chaos of the universe. The God wishes to delude itself and become nothing, the universe causes things which exist yet do not wish to. Existence is the passing and changing of light. Feelings are light (electrical signals) time is change, moments are defined by change. Without change there is no moment, no experience. The universe does not create but changes from form to form. A house is but a layer of bricks. My question is does light travelling at 60% c behave the same way as 100% c light.

Trix,

Thank you for your thoughts and insights. The best way to honor them would be for you to initiate your own thread, where you could both explain and expand upon them.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

My theory of god is neither atheistic nor theistic in nature. My theory has no agenda to convert anyone, nor do I hold dear these beliefs. I do not hold these truths as propaganda, only what I have come to observe.

My theory is that "God" is only intelligent in the sense that we perceive it as such. That is, God is Nature, and as we transform as part of Nature we align with God. Is an ant less intelligent than a human? Ants are nature also, to an ant reality seems real to their experience. We cannot understand an ant, and ant cannot understand us. If an ant could understand us, it would cease to be an ant, and would be instead human.

Intelligence is a misleading term. Intelligence, like science, are matching games, simply Nature matching itself to itself, creating a feedback loop of sorts. A=A, 2+2=4, it is nature simply matching nature.

It is easy to say a God being creates out of need, out of desire, but these are misleading terms as well. It creates because it just does, because the void causes a feeling, and causes action to create. A god could not perceive the universe because the universe is pain, pain is what we reject, a god subdivides itself and creates what we call pain, which is the natural order and chaos of the universe. The God wishes to delude itself and become nothing, the universe causes things which exist yet do not wish to. Existence is the passing and changing of light. Feelings are light (electrical signals) time is change, moments are defined by change. Without change there is no moment, no experience. The universe does not create but changes from form to form. A house is but a layer of bricks. My question is does light travelling at 60% c behave the same way as 100% c light.

but what did you write?
You wrote, God is nature.
Then you wrote, a God could not perceive the universe, as the universe is pain.
Then you wrote, God creates what we call pain.
Then you wrote, the universe does not create, but changes from form to form.

Now, according to your observations,
the universe, that is pain, is created by God, but God is nature, so that pain is created by nature, which is God, who creates pain, that is the universe.
Finally God creates the universe.

You started writing that your theory was neithet atheistic nor theistic, but I think you are a bit confused.

You are helping Trixie the Transexual hijack this thread. Stop it.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

My theory of god is neither atheistic nor theistic in nature. My theory has no agenda to convert anyone, nor do I hold dear these beliefs. I do not hold these truths as propaganda, only what I have come to observe.

Trix,

Do us the courtesy of getting off this thread. We do not need a hijacker. Start your own, run whatever agenda you want. I promise not to intrude and hijack your thread with other ideas.

Thank you.

Greylorn

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are going about the problem in completely the wrong way.
If you are going to assume that the Universe is the result of "intelligent" design, then to characterise that intelligence, you can only infer from the character of Nature.

You seem to have started by comparing historical versions of god , one with the other, which date from times in which our understanding of the vastness of the universe, and the details of its structure were very poorly understood.

It seems to me that, given our improved understanding, we are much better placed to understand the volition and purpose of "god/gods/entity" through reference to Nature.

So what kind of God, places intelligent humans with a fear of death, but with the certain knowledge of death; that designs elegant and terrible diseases which cause maximal suffering.

H.C.

Your assessment of how we "are going about the problem" is based upon an incorrect assumption on your part, namely that you actually know how we are going about the problem. This is not possible, since neither I.C. nor myself know that. We're "winging it."

I don't see that we've done any comparison of gods, yet, so please be less anxious to make things up.

I.C. and I have different approaches to the creation question, agreeing only that the universe is created. I will not speak for him except on things we have personally discussed and clarified. He will present his own thoughts as this thread progresses. However, I pretty much agree with you about nature. My creator-concept is derived entirely from nature. Not simply biological stuff, but mainly physics.

Before answering your last excellent question, it would be good to know if you make the usual assumption that God created both the human body and soul. I do not.

Greylorn

This is a clear demonstration that the question is being asked the wrong way.
I did not mention "soul" I don't see what that has to do with it. In the vastness of the Unvierse, a puny thing like a "human" is pathetic enough. What even is the soul? And who cares? Not god surely?
Why do you have ANY idea of a god. But if you do, why ignore some aspects of nature and favour others. What you are doing is silly anthropomorphism.
What is you concept of 'god" for? A theory that does no work is meaningless.