Seeking After God: A Gentile Conversation with Jewish Sages

By Wayne Talbot

The author has a fascination with God. His belief stems from an earlier study of science and logic concluding that a transcendent, infinite entity is the most probable cause of our existence. The same study convinced him that God is One, and that he should ignore polytheistic religions in his search for understanding. A study of the Quran revealed it to be a mixture of Jewish, Christian, and pagan beliefs, and thus unlikely to be an authentic depiction of God. A deeper study of Christian history, the contradictions and implausible narratives in the New Testament, and the Old Testament variances from the earlier Hebrew Scriptures, convinced him to walk away from the Christianity of his earlier years. All this he has written about in his previously published works.

Now he had but one choice: to understand what Judaism has to say about God. For this he sought the opinions of earlier Jewish scholars - Maimonides, Rabbi Ibn Ezra, Hasdai Crescas, and others, and more modern commentators, Hirsch, Kook, and most especially Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo, in the title of whose book, “Jewish Law in Rebellion”, he found a kindred spirit, echoing his own rebellion against religions in general. He considers religions to be too complacent, believing that they already know the God Whom the Jews describe as Ein Sof – the Infinite and Unknowable God. The author contends that cannot truly know God, agreeing with Maimonides that we can only describe God in terms of what He is not.

Thus, his search continues, believing that God knows the fallibility of the mankind He created, and likely prefers that we seek without finding, rather than in turn, accept vicariously the perceptions of others who have not sought for themselves. Indoctrination has its dangers, whether in ideology, politics, or religion.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris AU
• Release date: Oct 8, 2019
• ISBN: 9781796007220

Wayne Talbot

The author, Wayne Talbot, was once a Christian, but continually struggled with what it was that he should believe. Not quite sure, he went back to a beginning, questioning whether in truth, the existence of God was believable. He concluded for God, publishing his reasoning in his first book, “If Not God What?”. Raised in the Catholic faith, but finding some doctrines having no basis in the bible, his studies directed him away from Catholicism to non-denomination Protestantism; from there to Evangelical Christianity; from there to Messianic Judaism; and from there to where he is today - a theist believing in the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, but aligned with no identified religion. His quest for an understanding of God has him studying the ancient texts of Scripture, guided by the published works of numerous Old and New Testament scholars – Jewish, Christian, and secular. Focusing on specific issues has allowed him to see through the fog of doctrine, dogma, and theology, and reach conclusions which he has published in numerous studies, this analysis of prophecy fulfillment being his thirteenth. His journey continues, one that he believes he will never finish, for on many issues, he has only managed to uncover untruth. Though a late starter in the literary field, Wayne Talbot has published a novel, Finding the Shepherd, a pseudo-biographical account which alludes to his own theological wanderings against a background of places he has been, but entirely fictional people and events. He has published a refutation of Richard Dawkins’ Greatest Show on Earth, entitled The Dawkins Deficiency, and an entirely original treatise, Information, Knowledge, Evolution, and Self, which contends that the posited mechanisms of evolution are insufficient to account for the cognitive information and knowledge in humans.

Book preview

Copyright © 2019 by Wayne Talbot.

Library of Congress Control Number:   2019915764

ISBN:      Hardcover      978-1-7960-0724-4

                Softcover         978-1-7960-0723-7

                eBook               978-1-7960-0722-0

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Scripture taken from:

The New King James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982, 1994, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Artscroll English Tanach: The Jewish Scripture. Copyright © 2011, Mesorah Publications, Ltd. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Chumash, Stone Edition: The Torah, Haftaros, and Five Megillos. Copyright © 2009, Mesorah Publications, Ltd. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Aramaic English New Testament: Peshitta English Aramaic Critical Edition. Copyright © 2012, Netzari Press LLC. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, according to the Vatican Text, translated into English. Samuel Bagster, London, 1844. Copyright expired.

Quranic quotations taken from:

The Koran. Translated from the Arabic by J. M. Rodwell, Copyright © 2001, Orion Publishing Group. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Rev. date: 10/08/2019

Xlibris

1-800-455-039

www.Xlibris.com.au

797913

CONTENTS

By the same Author

Acknowledgements

Prologue

Author’s Note

A Letter to God

A Word on Atheism

A Brain Teaser

Part 1    Understanding Torah

Chapter 1-1    The Truth

Chapter 1-2    Uncovering Untruth

Chapter 1-3    The Torah Mystery

Chapter 1-4    A Failure of Logic

Chapter 1-5    The Purpose of Creation

Chapter 1-6    Genesis

Chapter 1-7    Good in Genesis

Chapter 1-8    Torah – God’s Code of Conduct

Chapter 1-9    Concerning Idols

Chapter 1-10    Monotheism

Chapter 1-11    Anthropomorphic God

Chapter 1-12    How Can We Know God?

Chapter 1-13    Christianity Versus Judaism

Chapter 1-14    Philosophy And Judaism

Part 2    Thirteen Principles Of Judaism

Chapter 2-1    Principle 1

Chapter 2-2    Principle 2

Chapter 2-3    Principle 3

Chapter 2-4    Principle 4

Chapter 2-5    Principles 5

Chapter 2-6    Principle 6

Chapter 2-7    Principle 7

Chapter 2-8    Principle 8

Chapter 2-9    Principle 9

Chapter 2-10    Principle 10

Chapter 2-11    Principle 11

Chapter 2-12    Principle 12

Chapter 2-13    Principle 13

Chapter 2-14    Introduction to Perek Helek

Chapter 2-15    The Messiah in History

Chapter 2-16    More Failed Claims

Chapter 2-17    The Future Messiah

Part 3    The Law - Jewish or Christian?

Chapter 3-1    Judaism and The Torah

Chapter 3-2    Christianity and the Law

Chapter 3-3    My Opinion on the Law

Chapter 3-4    Torah for Gentiles

Chapter 3-5    Law NOT given to Gentiles

Chapter 3-6    The Seven Noahide Laws

Chapter 3-7    Sin, Repentance, Forgiveness

Chapter 3-8    Torah, Longevity, and Peace

Chapter 3-9    Christians Born Again

Part 4    Where to from Here?

Chapter 4-1    Faith and Belief

Chapter 4-2    Why We Love God

Chapter 4-3    How to Love God?

Chapter 4-4    Understanding Obedience

Part 5    Understanding Ourselves

Chapter 5-1    The Nefesh

Chapter 5-2    Ethics and the Moral Challenge

Part 6    Living as God Requires

Chapter 6-1    Understanding Worship

Chapter 6-2    Impossible to Please God?

Chapter 6-3    Sin and the Commandments

Chapter 6-4    Commandments for Gentiles

Chapter 6-5    Choosing to do Good

Chapter 6-6    Law versus Behaviour

Chapter 6-7    Putting It All Together

Footnote

Appendix A    Sample Commandments

Bibliography

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

Science:

The Dawkins Deficiency: Why Evolution is Not the Greatest Show on Earth, Deep River Books, Sisters, OR, 2011

Information, Knowledge, Evolution, and Self: A Question of Origins, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2016

Novels:

Finding the Shepherd: A Tale of Two Loves, Westbow Press, Bloomington, IN, 2016

Theology:

The New Covenant on Trial: Examining the Evidence for a Replacement Covenant, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2016

Once a Christian: How the Bible Convinced Me to Walk Away, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2017

Christians Too, Must Obey: Putting a Fence Around Torah, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2017

Prophecy Unfulfilled: The New Testament Examined by the Rules of Evidence, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2018

Religion? Of God or Man? Does God Really Require Religiosity? Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2019

From the Back Pew: (series published by Peshat Books)

Volume 1 - If Not God, What? On Being an Intellectually Fulfilled Theist

Volume 2 - Choosing to Know God: Understanding God’s Presence in the World

Volume 3 - Bible Inerrancy: Fact or Fiction? The Inerrancy of God’s Word versus the Fallibility of Human Interpretation

Volume 4 - Our Shepherd His Flock: Following the Jewish Messiah on the Path Less Travelled

Volume 5 - What New Covenant? Rethinking the Implications of the First Coming of the Messiah

Volume 6 - God’s Only Law Book: Overdue Maintenance of the Narrow Path

Volume 7 - Defending God’s Sabbath: Obeying God’s Commandment to Safeguard the Sabbath

Volume 8 - From Sin to Salvation: A Fresh Perspective on God’s Plan for Mankind

Volume 9 - A Biblical Discourse - Volume 1: For Those Prepared to Risk Their Orthodox Theology

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

"The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

~ Albert Einstein ~

I have chosen many tutors from the Jewish faith, but the man who has most inspired me to continue questioning, and to think outside the box, as it were, is Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo. No doubt, this is because his thinking appears to parallel mine when it comes to strict codification of God’s guidance, in detail, for all people, for all time and circumstance. Maybe it was Einstein’s Jewish heritage that had him expressing, as in the quotation above, that we must continue to seek. Understand that when I use the word, codification, I do not intend to convey that we must interpret the Torah precisely as written, for it is more complex than that, with meanings that must be gleaned through careful study.

Without doubt, the most thought-provoking book that I have ever read on Judaism is "Jewish Law as Rebellion¹ by this Rabbi. Sub-titled, A Plea for Religious Authenticity and Halachic Courage, the author takes Judaism to task for its stagnancy and confinement. Of interest is that Christianity suffers from similar symptoms, as one Christian writer observed: We desperately need to heed what Kierkegaard said about Christianity: ‘The greatest proof of Christianity’s decay is the prodigiously large number of [like-minded] Christians’."² In other words, an intellectual search for God has been subsumed in the tradition and dogmatism of both religions. There is a call in some quarters, for a revival in both religions, or as Cardozo terms it, and I prefer, a rebellion, one that will require courage, discipline, and resistance to those who claim to already know God, and how He requires of us to live in an ever changing world.

Based on his belief, Rabbi Cardozo further argues that:

"Halacha [Jewish Law – the path that one walks] is the practical upshot of unfinalized beliefs, a practical way of life while remaining in theological suspense. In matters of the spirit and the quest to find God, it is not possible to come to final conclusions. The quest for God must remain open-ended to enable the human spirit to find its way through trial and discovery. As such, Judaism has no catechism. It has an inherent aversion to dogma. Although it includes strong beliefs, they are not susceptible to formulation in any kind of authoritative system. It is up to the Talmudic scholar to choose between many opinions, for they are all authentic. They are part of God’s Torah, and even opposing opinions "are all from one Shepherd. (Chagiga 3b.)"³

Although Judaism … has an inherent aversion to dogma, that is not to suggest that dogma is entirely absent from the religion of Judaism. As Shapiro comments: … the fact remains that for all medieval authorities, as well as Talmudic rabbis, there were certain dogmas which Jews were obligated to believe in, simply because the religion is unintelligible without them. Although it is likely that the Talmudic rabbis had fewer of these dogmas than their medieval colleagues, they too were prepared to lay down some parameters of belief.⁴ In some Orthodox circles, the Thirteen Principles of Maimonides, to be discussed in later chapters, are treated as dogma.

Many Jewish rabbis have contributed to my thinking over recent years. Firstly, it was Rabbi Tovia Singer with his series, "Let’s Get Biblical⁵-⁷. His prodigious knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and Christian New Testament has informed me of Christian errors way beyond any that I could have discovered by myself. Dovid Rosenfeld has been a wonderful guide through Pirkei Avot"⁸, illuminating the teachings of the Sages. Rabbi Yaacov Feldman’s series by email on Spiritual Excellence has been very thought-provoking. Rabbi Ari Abramowitz has offered personal encouragement as I journey through this uncharted territory. There have been many others. And to top it off, I have been drawn into the writings of Maimonides, and commentaries that seek to interpret, or re-interpret, his Thirteen Principles. We get to those later.

With this background, I must make special mention of Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo, and express my gratitude, firstly for his book referenced below, and also for his Thoughts to Ponder series by email. As an analyst, by proclivity, training, and occupation, I have long been intrigued by how people have different thought patterns, leading them to reach different conclusions from essentially the same data. Rabbi Cardozo has demonstrated a particular way of thinking, which I am yet to fully grasp, but his thinking resonates with mine. The best examples I can offer are my previously published books, where I have come to conclusions from the New Testament which are contrary to Christian teachings and theology. Just why that is perplexes me, but it is not an issue which I intend to further explore.

Thus, my sincere thanks to Rabbi Cardozo, for the simple reason that his questioning is the best that I have ever encountered, and has stimulated my own thinking in the writing of this book.

My thanks to all those who have contributed to my progress to date.

References:

1. Cardozo, Rabbi Nathan Lopes, Jewish Law as Rebellion: A Plea for Religious Authenticity and Halachic Courage, Urim Publications, Jerusalem, Israel, 2017

2. Thulstrup, Marie M., Kierkegaard’s Dialectic of Imitation in Howard A. Johnson and Niels Thulstrup (eds.), A Kierkegaard Critique, [New York: Harper 1962] p 277

3. Cardozo, Ibid, p. 68

4. Shapiro, Marc B., The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, UK, 2004, p. 29

5. Singer, Rabbi Tovia, Let’s Get Biblical – Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah, Outreach Judaism, Jerusalem, Israel, 2001

6. Singer, Rabbi Tovia, Let’s Get Biblical – Expanded Edition Volume 1, Outreach Judaism, Jerusalem, Israel, 2015

7. Singer, Rabbi Tovia, Let’s Get Biblical – Expanded Edition Volume 2, Outreach Judaism, Jerusalem, Israel, 2015

8. 8. Marcus, Rabbi Yosef, Pirkei Avot: The Ethics of the Fathers, Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY, 2011

PROLOGUE

"There is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God"

(Romans 3:11, NKJV)

Whilst still a Christian studying the New Testament, I was intrigued by Paul (mis)quoting the Psalms in his letter to the Romans. His audience included Jews, likely familiar with the Scriptures, yet in citing Psalm 14 (also Psalm 53), he seemingly chose to ignore the context of the opening line of David’s prayer: The fool says in his heart, there is no God. (Psalm 14:1) Who amongst the Jews, and even the Greeks there present, denied the existence of God? And would not the Jews have understood that Paul was misappropriating words of Scripture for his own purposes, a sin according to the teachings of the Pharisees?

My study of the self-styled Apostle, Paul, was largely due to the many opinions that Paul was the true founder of Western Christianity. I was intrigued as to why, and how, a Jewish religion became anti-Jewish. I could not reconcile my study of Judaism, with Paul claiming to be a Jewish Pharisee, yet acting and teaching in an entirely contrary manner. There was a disconnect that could not be explained from within the New Testament writings. I am especially indebted to the writings of Bernard Lee, which we will discuss more fully later, where he also questions the early trajectory of Christian theology, claiming as it did that Jesus intended founding a new religion outside Judaism. Thus, to understand why Christianity transitioned from Hebraic to Hellenic thought, as the centre moved from Jerusalem to Rome, one must better understand Paul, which is why he is my focus here.

According to his disciple, Luke, Paul claimed I am indeed a Jew … brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today. (Acts 22:3, NKJV) He then went on to say, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee (Acts 23:6, NKJV). Paul’s precise Pharisaic heritage is open to question, as suggested by these translations:

• I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees (NIV).

• I am a Pharisee, as were my ancestors (NLT).

• I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees (ESV).

• I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee (KJV)

There is a substantive difference across these versions, with only the KJV explicitly asserting that Paul’s father was a Pharisee, a dubious claim given the circumstances of Paul’s early life. My point here is that if Paul truly was a Pharisee, trained by Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel the Elder) who was the pre-eminent Pharisee at the time, he would have been unlikely to have misused the Holy Scriptures in the ways that he did. This suggests, to my mind as I have written about¹, that Paul was not a trained Pharisee, and only made that claim to establish his credentials amongst the Jews in the Diaspora. Despite the criticism of the Pharisees in the Gospels, and the subsequent Christian scorn of Pharisaism, treating the term as an insult, the Pharisees were accepted as the authorities on Torah, and anyone who was not a trained Pharisee would have had difficulty gaining credibility:

It should be noted (in advance of a full discussion of the subject) that modern scholarship has shown that, at this time, the Pharisees were held in high repute throughout the Roman and Parthian empires as a dedicated group who upheld religious ideals in the face of tyranny, supported leniency and mercy in the application of laws, and championed the rights of the poor against the oppression of the rich.²

Catholic theologian, Bernard J. Lee, S.M., is one who differs from traditional Christian rejection of the Pharisees. He wrote, I began to understand the Pharisees as ‘interpreters’ par excellence who opened Judaism to the future … the Pharisees and Rabbis did not so much canonize a particular interpretation as they did canonize the process of interpreting … For me, grappling with the contemporary hermeneutical tradition was also an exercise in the hermeneutics of retrieval – recovering some Pharisaic genius that too long escaped Christian detection. The tragedy for Christians is that we have steadfastly missed the genetic connection between Jesus and the Pharisees. There is more insight into Jesus in his continuity with them than in his discontinuity (which exists on some points, but is not a radical discontinuity).³ Sadly, for both Christians and Jews, the early Church of Rome, in its haste to compromise with the pagan Roman emperor, Constantine, went beyond simple rejection of the Pharisees to outright contempt for the Jew in general, planting the roots of anti-Jewishness which persists to this day. This book⁴ by Jules Isaac tells the whole story.

Circumstantial evidence in Paul’s favour is that during his dispute before the council (Acts 23), assuming it to have been the full Sanhedrin, we have no recorded comment by Gamaliel himself, who would have known whether Paul was one of his former students. We cannot know whether Gamaliel was present or not. However, we must also bear in mind, as one scholar was moved to contend regarding the Book of Acts: "This account owes more to Luke’s ability to compose an engagingly plausible tale, than to his access to historically reliable information about Paul’s missionary experience … Luke gives us historical fiction rather than an historical report."⁵ Some have suggested that Luke’s narrative should have been named, The Acts of Paul. Perhaps Gamaliel did comment, but Luke either did not know about it, or if he did know, he chose to omit such contrary evidence from his account.

Another interpretation of the event is suggested by the context of Paul’s claim: concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged. The Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, so could Paul have been saying, not that he was a Pharisee per se, but that he agreed with the Pharisaic beliefs concerning the afterlife? For another perspective on Paul, regarding his training as a Pharisee, one may be interested to read this online comment⁶.

In making his point concerning righteousness, would Paul have done better to quote: For there is not a just man on earth who does good but does not sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20)? Perhaps not, for in doing so, he would have acknowledged what he preferred not to: that there were just and righteous people, just as Luke acknowledged concerning Zacharias and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). So why did Paul cite the Scriptures as he did? I can only reason that he was taking every dialectic path open to him to argue his case, even though in doing so, he was acting contrary to his own claimed beliefs.

In seeking God, we must be intellectually honest, for God knows why we do as we do. God also knows what He created: fallible mankind susceptible to all forms of error. Thus, I believe, God excuses our errors in our intellectual endeavours, so long as they are honestly made. Despite our failures in this regard, I just hope that these words promise correctly:

"I love those who love Me, and those who search for Me will find Me"

(Proverbs 8:17) [emphases mine]

References:

1. Talbot, Wayne, Prophecy Unfulfilled: The New Testament Examined by the Rules of Evidence, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2018, pp. 163-192

2. MacCoby, Hyam, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Barnes & Noble Books, San Francisco, CA, 1998, p. 6

3. Dewey, Arthur J., The Authentic Letters of Paul, Polebridge Press, Salem, OR, 2010, p. 166

4. Lee, Bernard J., The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1988, p. 13

5. Isaac, Jules, The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, NY, 1964

6. https://readingacts.com/2011/09/07/paul-at-the-feet-of-

gamaliel/

AUTHOR’S NOTE

"The fool says in his heart, there is no God"

(Psalm 14:1)

Independently of these words in King David’s psalm, and not at all based on any religious teaching, my thinking echoes this opinion, though perhaps not for the reasons you might expect. In an earlier work, "Religion? Of God or Man?"¹, I explained why I had concluded that a transcendent, infinite, spiritual being was the most plausible explanation for our material existence, and for the want of a better term, I have accepted the identification of this being as God. Throughout the ages, others have thought similarly, using logic and science to conclude as I have done, giving the lie to the atheist claim that there is no evidence for God (note evidence not proof). Perhaps the most intriguing study that I have read is that by the medieval Sephardic Jewish philosopher, Moses ben Maimon, aka Maimonides or Rambam (1135-1204). Intriguing because much of his theorising can be found in modern physics, although expressed in very different terms. This belief in the necessity of a First Cause goes back even further in history to the Greeks, and was part of Roman Catholic theology: Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) Summa Theologica. Today, this theory is termed the Cosmological Argument.

Nothing that I have read in modern scientific theory has offered evidence contradicting the necessity of a First Cause: as with evolutionary biology, the subject of origins is beyond the scope of scientific enquiry. As an aside, as it relates to both the evidence for God and my other study, evolution, atheists will generally claim that mankind invented God out of ignorance and need. These same people argue, in support of evolution, that the mind and the brain are both physical, the mind being an emergent property of the brain. If the processes of the mind-brain are entirely dependent upon genetics and biology, how did the concept of God, if He does not exist, arise in the human mind? A conundrum that atheists have yet to solve.

I have also concluded that God must have had a hand in the creation of humankind, though whether through the instant creation of Adam and Eve as the first humans, or whether through directed evolution over millions of years, I neither know nor care. Of one truth I am convinced: the material Universe does not contain the requisite wherewithal to evolve humankind without external help. Philosophically, I do not contend with evolution other than that the microbes to man hypothesis is implausible: I am convinced by the scientific evidence that it could not have happened through biological processes alone. On that subject, I have published preliminary arguments in "Information, Knowledge, Evolution and Self"², and am working on a more comprehensive study to be published in the future.

That said, whilst an explanation for the existence of the Universe, and how humankind arose, is of great interest to many and even myself at times, my interest here is primarily the present. Who IS God, and what is it that we should know of Him? The past has conditioned us, and our present is conditioning not just our future, but that of generations to come. King Solomon, reputedly the wisest of men, wrote: "Whatever has been is what will be, and whatever has been done is what will be done: there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). According to Jewish literature, the Sages were so troubled by this blanket condemnation of mankind that they doubted whether it should be included in the Scriptures – wherein the hope for us if we keep repeating the errors of the past? Nevertheless, Solomon’s words were prophetic: we indeed seem never to learn.

Psalm 14 continues: "The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God" (v. 2) [emphasis mine]. I cannot know how many people, over the millennia, of varying races and cultures, have sincerely pursued that cause, but I have chosen to be one of them. One should not confuse following a religion with seeking God, for the god of that religion may be other than the one true God that I have concluded must exist. Rabbi Cardozo asks the question: "who among us is in fact spiritually uncomfortable?"³ Well, most certainly, I am. Having self-excommunicated from Roman Catholicism, and now an apostate from all forms of Christianity, I am in a religious no-man’s land, attempting to find the spiritual zone which I believe must exist. As I will later conclude, such is an exercise in futility, and perversely, that is a very good thing.

Studying the teachings of the three, major, monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, I have concluded that they do not worship the same God, even though some claim that they do. Islam claims to worship the same God as the "people of the Book", i.e., Jews and Christians; Christianity claims to worship the same God as the Jews, except that the Jews failed to understand the Trinitarian verses in their own Scriptures; Orthodox Judaism contends that both Moslems and Christians worship false gods. In that context, Judaism and Islam have more in common with each other than with Christianity, for both affirm and worship the ONE true God: they just disagree on who that is. For more on that subject, you may be interested in this book⁴ by Mark Durie.

I agree, in principle, with Judaism, although as you will see, I disagree with some traditional Judaism interpretations of the Scriptures, for they seem to me to ignore what Judaism teaches about God, just as Christian theology does.

It is my firm belief that God does exist, although what exist might mean when speaking of this First Cause is beyond my understanding. Even the term, First, being relative, is unsatisfactory because no other subsequent cause is in any way like it. Maimonides expressed this concept in a rather unhelpful manner, although the truth of it is incontestable (to my mind):

God exists, without possessing the attribute of existence. Similarly He lives, without possessing the attribute of life; knows, without possessing the attribute of knowledge; is omnipotent without possessing the attribute of omnipotence; is wise, without possessing the attribute of wisdom; all this reduces itself to one and the same entity; there is no plurality in Him, as will be shown.⁵

In later chapters, I will attempt to explain why I have come to agree with Maimonides on this issue, although stumbling on his further comment that God is one without possessing the attribute of unity. The truth is, as I have come to believe, that the infinite nature of God is so entirely different from the finite nature of our existence, that no words in our vocabulary can begin to describe Him: thus, we can only say of God what He is not, rather than what He is. We revisit this conundrum a little later.

I also believe that God wants us to all to have the same view of Him. It follows that we should all live our lives in a similar manner, always subject to our individual characters, personalities, capabilities, occupations, and the circumstances in which God has chosen to place us. There must be a common thread for all of us to follow, one that binds us to God and one another. It is my sincere desire to understand that thread. In Judaism, one of the most important festivals is Shavuot (Feast of Weeks), commemorating the revelation of the Torah at Mt Sinai, fifty days after the rescue from bondage in Egypt under Pharaoh. Judaism, as far as I know, is the only culture that actually celebrates the Law – everybody else considers the law burdensome - irksome even. This love of the Torah is best exemplified in King David’s Psalms 19 and 119. The reason that the Jews celebrate is their understanding that the Law was given to assist people to live in harmony with God, and with one another. Civil law attempts to codify how societies can live in harmony, and other attempts are made through religions, philosophy, and declarations such as the Humanist Manifesto.

Would it not be simpler to just understand what our Creator has said on this issue? Had the early Church of Rome, later the Roman Catholic Church and Holy Roman Empire, not abandoned Torah as too Jewish, Western society might have made much greater progress in that regard.

For these and related reasons, I continue to seek God, and in that cause, I must converse with those whom I believe have the most accurate perspective of God, as given in this identification: Ein Sof – The Infinite and Unknowable God. This study follows the writings of the Jewish Sages, from which I quote. That is not to suggest that I agree with all of these writings, as indeed, Judaic scholars often do not agree with one another, but again, one of the reasons why I am intrigued by Judaism is that it is a living religion, responding to the needs of generations as their circumstances and environments change. Codifying a religion two thousand years ago has not served the adherents of Christianity very well at all, just as many suras in the Quran do not serve the cause of moderate Islam today. Jewish historian, Heinrich Graetz (1817-1891) opined: The only defenders of true monotheism, in other words, of rationalism in religion, are still the adherents of Judaism. Judaism, which is throughout rationalistic, is the sole stronghold of free thought in the religious sphere.⁶ In an earlier study¹, before reading of Graetz, I had come to the same conclusion, largely due to the disagreement amongst the Sages and even contemporary Jewish scholars, as they seek to better understand God and Torah, rather than being locked into a dogma established centuries ago. That is not to deny that many followers of Judaism are indeed locked in, but that is to be expected of humanity. Judaism does not have dogma in the same sense as Roman Catholicism, because Judaism has no church, and significantly, no central authority with the power to formulate beliefs and religious practices. However, in the sense that dogma is the body of opinion formulated and authoritatively stated, then certainly, Judaism does have dogma. It is just that there is a plethora of authorities. We can be confident that a large percentage of religious Jews accept Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles as authoritative, but with varying interpretations.

If I were to have any message to readers, it would be this: do not be afraid to question. I accepted all that I was taught growing up in a Catholic community – I was like any Christian indoctrinated in beliefs from the cradle. Now, getting ever closer to the grave, my courage to question grows ever stronger. Protestants have no reluctance questioning Catholicism, but are reluctant to question their own denominations, as if the Reformers of 16th and 17th century had a better understanding of God, than their predecessors throughout the centuries. I have questioned Christianity in general and walked away. When Christian acquaintances, and even friends, learned of my decision, as explained in "Once a Christian"⁷, the responses were of one accord: I was never truly a Christian. So many Christians have accepted the maxim: once a Christian, always a Christian, using it to bolster their confidence in their own beliefs, giving no regard to the likelihood that this has been taught to ensure loyalty to the Church, being a more subtle form of coercion to that found in Islam; in the latter, apostacy can bring death. In Christian doctrine, apostacy brings spiritual death. I have been told that my walk away from Christianity was a misunderstanding on my part, for I had never there in the first place - I had not truly been born again, and had not the Holy Spirit within. In a later chapter, I will argue why this belief is without foundation.

When demeaned as I have been, I have been tempted to respond in my defence, but knew instinctively that any attempt at defence based on reason would be futile, for you see, I too had been taught as they had, and had believed as they do – my early faith was never based on reason. When Paul wrote to the Romans, a group of Gentiles and Jews, quoting Psalm 14: "There is none who seeks after God" (Romans 3:11, NKJV), what did he intend to convey to his Jewish audience? I cannot know, but this I do know - I continue to seek after God, not relying entirely on the teachings of others. How this can be reconciled with the accusation that I have not the Holy Spirit within used to trouble me, but no longer, for having researched the source of that contention, I have found it to lack authority.

Genesis tells us that we are made in the image of God. As best as I can understand, that image relates to our intellect, our free will, and our ability to reason. If these are the attributes of God that He considered most important to imbue in us, then it stands to reason that those are the talents that He wants us to most develop and exercise. We have material attributes and talents, but as God is spirit, these cannot be the ones on which He would have us focus, for they are not in His image. I cannot know why I have this passion to use my intellect in a search for God, but would be very surprised, and not a little disappointed, if the Spirit of God was not in some way behind it. I am reminded of an opinion of Maimonides, that one cannot love God unless one also loves wisdom.

In many ways, this book is premature in that I still have a lot to both learn, and unlearn, but if I were to wait until I was satisfied with my understanding of God, not a word would be written. Leaning on the wisdom of that great Jewish Sage, Hillel the Elder, "If not now, when?" (Mishnah Avot 1:14) Another author has expressed my intent far better than I could, so I shall appropriate his words in my own cause:

The scope of the inquiry is so vast that it would be pretentious for an author to imagine that he has given all the answers or even asked correctly all the questions. My ambition has been the far more modest one of trying to formulate my own personal faith and presenting the results to interested readers as a basis for further debate and discussion.⁸

Without apology to other faiths, I am convicted that the truth of God can best be understood by studying the writings of the Jewish Sages, both ancient and modern. I have also accepted the advice of Maimonides concerning the application of philosophy to this quest, meaning that we must seek beyond the written text of Torah to what lies behind, most especially God’s purpose in giving the Law as He did: "According to Maimonides’ ‘Parable of the Palace’, closeness to God is a function of intellectual apprehension, with philosophers in the inner court, people who accept true doctrines on traditional authority further away, and people with no interest in truth further away still."⁹ I have chosen to venture into the inner court, but with no little apprehension. I have yet to achieve the peace of Rabbi Akiva (50 – 135 CE) who is said to have entered paradise (pardes) and returned in peace because wisely, he acknowledged that there are limits to our comprehension of God, yet we should worship Him nonetheless.

Thus, this Gentile Conversation with Jewish Sages, as in all sincerity, I pursue the quest of Seeking God. Of course, there is the danger that this becomes an entirely intellectual activity, not backed by action – talking the talk but NOT walking the walk, so to speak. I am intensely curious about all manner of things, and am naturally curious about my own curiosity in this matter, but I am convinced by these words: The secret of the Lord is with those who fear Him (Psalm 25:14). Fear God, I do. Intent is necessary, but not sufficient, to justify whatever actions one may take, or as Rabbi Cardozo puts it as we later discuss in the context of the Golden Calf: noble intentions that motivate an action do not make it righteous. Only the divinely willed content of an action can give it real, positive, moral value.¹⁰

I can only pray that the writing of this book represents such an action, echoing the prayer of King David: Cause me to know the way wherein I should walk, for unto Thee have I lifted up my soul. (Psalm 143:8, JPS Tanach 1917) As opined by Catholic theologian, Bernard Lee, in his "Conversation on the Road Not Taken, I believe that finally, every theological work is also autobiography anyway, so this is my way of being up front about it."¹¹

Mine also.

Explanatory Note: In editing this study, I have found myself regularly using the phrase, I prefer, or my preference. I would ask the reader to understand this in an intellectual sense, rather than any other, for I have no preference for what the truth should be, I just want to know what it is.

Wayne Talbot

Kelso NSW Australia

October, 2019

Reference:

1. Talbot, Wayne, Religion? Of God or Man? Does God Really Require Religiosity? Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2019

2. Talbot, Wayne, Information, Knowledge, Evolution and Self: A question of origins, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2016

3. Cardozo, Rabbi Nathan Lopes, Jewish Law as Rebellion: A Plea for Religious Authenticity and Halachic Courage, Urim Publications, Jerusalem, Israel, 2017, p. 229

4. Durie, Mark, Revelation – Do We Worship the Same God? CityHarvest Publications, Upper Mt Gravatt, Australia, 2006

5. Maimonides, Moses, The Guide for the Perplexed, Digireads Publishing, 2018, p. 156

6. Jacobs, Louis, Principles of the Jewish Faith: An Analytical Study, A Commentary Classic, Basic Books Inc., New York, NY, 1964, p. 3, quoting Heinrich Graetz, The Significance of Judaism for the Present and the Future, Jewish Quarterly Review, 1889

7. Talbot, Wayne, Once a Christian: How the Bible Convinced Me to Walk Away, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2017

8. Jacobs, Ibid, p. ix

9. Seeskin, Kenneth, Searching for a Distant God: The Legacy of Maimonides, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2000, p. 10

10. Cardozo, Ibid, p. 211

11. Lee, Bernard J., Jesus and the Metaphors of God: The Christs of the New Testament, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1993, p. 1

A LETTER TO GOD

Dear God,

If I may call You that, for I know that others use different terms, such as Hashem.

I do not know Who you are, although I have reasoned that You must exist as our Creator. I do not know why You created us, and why You seem so absent from the world. May I ask: Is this really how You wanted the world to turn out? From my perspective, it does not seem the sort of world that a loving, caring God would create and uphold. I acknowledge the Christian view that this is a "fallen world, but I do not agree: Christianity also claims that You knew of the need for a Saviour even before the beginning of the world (1 Peter 1:20, Revelation 13:8). If that be so, then You foreknew the supposed Fall", and it must have been Your Will that such should happen, else you are neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Either way, the world is as it is, and if You are in control, then events are proceeding according to Your Plan.

This is where I get confused: why would You choose it to be this way, and how long do You intend that these terrible conditions should persist? Islam, Christianity, and Judaism each has a version of an "End of Days" scenario, a time when the world as we know it will end, with a brighter future for some, and not so bright for others. Is this true, and if so, which version is true, if any? Jeremiah 31:26-37 tells of a time when all will know You, and I assume, we will all live in harmony with You and one another. According to some Jewish scholars, this will happen when Israel satisfies some criteria, and according to others, only You can bring this about when you send the mashiach to begin the Messianic Age. Either way, when will that be, if ever?

What are you waiting for, God?

The world is in turmoil, with war, famine, disease, corruption, paganism, and moral decay abounding. I see no signs of improvement; on the contrary, it seems to be getting worse with societies that formerly adhered to Judaeo-Christian values turning their backs on such traditions, and especially You. Are You waiting for humanity to collapse in on itself, before You rescue Your Creation? If You foresee a time as foretold in Jeremiah: "For all of them will know Me, from their smallest to their greatest", what will bring that about? I cannot conceive of humanity achieving that from within itself – the drift to secularism began as a trickle, and is now becoming a torrent. How do those of us who choose a different path, one clearly less and less travelled in the modern world, avoid this violent surge toward spiritual oblivion?

Another complaint of mine, if I may, is that You appear to have been silent from the last days of the Prophets until now, nearly three thousand years. Why is that? Why do You think that we could maintain our faith in You when, with such a protracted passage of time, we cannot be sure that any of the Hebrew Scriptures were truly factual, and not just mythology? You really do ask a great deal of us, dear God, but I am sure that You already know that. I just don’t understand why You have chosen to impose a seemingly impossible task on us.

I have but one hope: Israel.

Whenever my faith in You falters, as it often does, I return to the Hebrew Scriptures and ponder Israel. There can be no doubt that there is something distinctly odd about Israel amongst the nations over the past 3-4000 years.

It should not exist, but it does, and seems to be getting stronger.

It should not be so accomplished, but it is, and becoming more so.

In Isaiah 42:6 we read: "I am Hashem; I have called you with righteousness; I will strengthen your hand; I will protect you; I will set you for a covenant to the people, for a light to the nations" [emphasis mine]. It is the demonstrated truth of these words which both encourage and frustrate me: Why do so few see the light? Perhaps it is because the Jews, now forming the nation of Israel, are yet to fully apprehend the light, and thus cannot yet fulfill Your mission to be a light unto other nations, or even unto itself. I must confess that without the continued existence of Judaism and Israel, I would have little reason to hold onto my faith in You, if indeed you are the God of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Fortunately, there are some Jews who are shining Your light, though many seem to avert their eyes. I cannot explain why I find that light so enticing - why I find so much truth in the Hebrew Scriptures, and falsehood in other religious, so-called holy books.

Is this Your doing? Do you have a special mission for me? Is there something You want of me, a task that I have yet to apprehend? Or am I just fooling myself, following a belief just as Moslems, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and others do, for whatever reason?

I believe that You exist, God, but I find You incomprehensible, and Your purposes even more so. I mean no offence, I simply want You to understand why I am as confused as I am, and why doubts continue to plague me as they do. So, God, if there is something that You want me to know about You, and something that You want me to know about how I should interact with You and other people, I would much appreciate clearer guidance. You have to admit that You expect a lot from us, with so little direct contact for nearly 2,500 years.

In all humility, and sincerity of heart,

Wayne

A WORD ON ATHEISM

––––––––––––––––-

In any search for an understanding of God, I believe it fair to say a few words about atheism and atheists. I know many people who reject the notion of a god in control of the world, if for no other reason that they prefer to not know a god who allows such misery, pain, and torment. How can anyone describe this god as our God of Love, when no reasonable person would treat their creation in such a cruel way? Why are billions of people living in abject poverty, suffering from disease, hunger, and thirst, destined to die without ever experiencing any comfort or real hope for a better life? Why did this god, who it is written, described the Jews as His First-Born Son, allow six million of them to be slaughtered in the Holocaust? None of this makes any sense to the rational mind. To be truthful, this conundrum continues to trouble me to the extent whereby I suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance that I cannot resolve. Why does God behave as He appears to do?

I have no answer.

All I can offer is that logic and science, or rather the absence of scientific evidence, have convinced me that some form of transcendent entity must exist. Thus, whilst I believe in the EXISTENCE of God, I struggle to understand what to believe ABOUT God. That should be sufficient explanation for why I have written this book.

––––––––––––––––-

Atheism has many nuances, from the dogmatic rejection of any possibility of the spiritual (supernatural) as expressed by Carl Sagan’s oft repeated assertion: that "the [material] Cosmos is all there is, ever was, or ever will be", to the less aggressive stance of agnosticism, which generally expresses doubt that God exists, or in the form expressed by Kant, we cannot know whether God exists or not. Some seem to desire that God not exist, as suggested by the late Christopher Hitchens in describing himself thus:

But I should not conceal the fact that I am not so much an atheist as an anti-theist. I am, in other words, not one of those unbelievers who wishes that they had faith, or that they could believe. I am, rather, someone who is delighted that there is absolutely no persuasive evidence for the existence of any of mankind’s many thousands of past and present deities.¹

Hitchens’ view is echoed by Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy at New York University and a self-confessed atheist:

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.²

On his reluctant trek from atheism to Christianity, C.S. Lewis expressed a similar desire when he wrote, "I now had both a fresh motive for wishing Materialism to be true, and a decreased confidence that it was."³

It is interesting to note in passing that whilst Christopher Hitchens insists that "there is absolutely no persuasive evidence for the existence of God, his brother Peter, a former atheist, did find such evidence and described his change of mind in his book detailing how in fact, atheism led me to faith"⁴.

Putting aside for now, whether or not there exists evidence for God, persuasive or otherwise, in this chapter I intend to show that dogmatic atheism has no basis in science or logic. I accept that agnosticism, being unsure of the possibility of god, may be reasonable and is supportable to a degree by both logic and science. The reader should not confuse the possibility of a spiritual entity called god, with any religious interpretation of a particular god, or gods. In fact, I suspect that this is where so much confusion enters the mind of many of those favouring atheism - they are not arguing for atheism, they are rejecting a form of god that they find unpalatable for whatever reason.

The argument is typically of the form, I cannot believe in a god who … [fill in your personal dislike]. Anti-theist Christopher Hitchens stated, "It is to me an appalling thought that anyone could wish for a supreme and absolute and unalterable ruler, whose reign was eternal and unchallengeable"⁵. In my own case, I am not conscious of wanting there to be a God. I suspect that I could be entirely comfortable in life without God if He does not exist, but my belief is based on evidence, reasoning, and experience as discussed in an earlier work⁶. Hitchens goes on to write,

One is quite literally commanded to love. And commanded not just to love others as much as oneself – a ridiculous and impossible injunction, as well as an internally contradictory one – but also to love a supreme being for whom one must simultaneously feel an overpowering fear.⁷

What should be evident from statements like these is that much of the antagonism toward a spiritual entity stems not from the concept of God as creator, but from God as someone who sets the rules. Hitchens’ rejection of God seems to stem from a self-centredness that demands absolute freedom of action, and from consequence. I would not condemn him for that: it is his choice, but I fail to see this as a logical argument for disputing the possibility of God’s existence. Such rebellion is natural in us humans. I resented the WOD (Warrant Officer Disciplinary) who attempted to make my life a misery in my early RAAF cadet days, at least that is what I thought he was doing, and I may even have occasionally suffered an overpowering fear, but none of what I thought or felt could argue against the reality of his presence.

We also commonly find this type of argument in defence of evolution theory. Some scientists argue that God could not have designed living creatures because any sensible god would not have done it that way. This argument is a category mistake, belonging in the domain of philosophy, not logic or science, and is often accompanied by an inadequate understanding of the functionality of a particular aspect of our physiology or anatomy. Scientists have often advanced this argument only to find, through later research, that the design was better than they initially understood. In any event, before one can conclusively critique a particular design, one has to have a comprehensive understanding of what was in the mind of the designer. Claiming to know the mind of a Divine Creator, in whom they do not believe, borders on cognitive dissonance! I dealt extensively with this issue of poor design in a previous book⁸.

Before delving into the logic, let me declare that I am not antagonistic towards atheists as people. I contend with their beliefs, just as I contend with the beliefs of evolutionists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and others with whom I disagree on particular issues. I do not accept any and all opinions and beliefs as equally valid and acceptable – to my mind that is the antithesis of truth, and in a sense, demeaning and condescending. To believe anything and everything is to truly believe in nothing at all.

Spectrum of Belief

It is common for those defending atheism to counter with the claim that there is no proof of the supernatural. Whether there is, or is not, is irrelevant to the argument in this chapter - I am here contending on whether dogmatic atheism is logical. I question whether one can present a reasoned argument that there is not, and cannot be, a supernatural existence we call God. Dogmatic atheism is at one end of a spectrum of belief, theism at the other, and there is much in between. It is no more logical to argue the case for dogmatic atheism by rejecting theism, as it is to claim that the only alternative to the infra-red is the ultra-violet, just because they are at opposite ends of the light spectrum. There is much in between to be considered. Dogmatic atheism versus theism is similarly not an either/or debate: while proof of one would preclude the other, an inability to prove one does not automatically offer proof for the other.

The intent of this chapter is not to contend for the supernatural, but merely to demonstrate why I believe it illogical to assert, unequivocally, that there is no God.

A common argument I hear from atheists is that they do not have to offer proof for their contention that God does not exist: it is up to theists to prove that God does exist. This is more reasonably the argument for agnosticism, not dogmatic atheism. Atheists are positing an absolute truth, yet so often champion relativism, that there is no absolute truth. Further, such people are ignoring the philosophy that underpins their belief. Atheists believe in methodological / philosophical naturalism: that no explanation is needed for existence, it just is, or it just arose spontaneously uncaused out of nothing. Science cannot prove that, the latter is not even a scientific statement, and those claiming to believe in only what can be proven by science are deluding themselves. You may state that there is no proof of the origin of existence, however defined, but to then assert that God did or did not do it, without substantive evidence either way, is to demonstrate a bias based on a personal worldview. This is philosophy, not science, and while atheists and material-monists may choose to claim that they only believe in what can be scientifically proven, this simply shows that they are ignoring the fundamentals of their own belief system: materialism, or as it is often now referred to, methodological naturalism. Again, this is philosophy, not science, as is more accurately described as philosophical materialism.

Like the rest of us, atheists believe in existence, yet unlike theism, atheism cannot account for it.

I have two lines of argument that we cannot know that God does not exist, a short one and a longer one. The shorter one is a simple appeal to logic, the longer one invokes what we know of science.

The Short Argument

The short form of argument starts with the question: "how much of what there is to be known, is actually known?" This is difficult to answer with any precision or certainty, because we have no idea of how much there is to be known, and no yardstick to measure our ignorance against our knowledge. It is, in fact, an unbounded problem, incapable of resolution. Imagine yourself living in the 6th or the 12th century - how much was known then compared with now? We continue to learn, at an increasing rate according to some, but only to increasingly expose our ignorance according to others - new knowledge revealing ever greater mysteries. In the case of evolution, I have read the opinion of numerous scientists that the more is learned of biology, the less plausible genetic mutation and natural selection become as drivers of the process. In my opinion, had Charles Darwin known then what we know now, he would not have written as he did.

But let us assume that we know 20%, or maybe even 70%: how can we know that the remaining 80% or even 30%, that vast bulk of the knowledge that we do not know, does not include God? Of course, we cannot, and we are fooling ourselves to think otherwise. Such thinking reminds me of that famous nonsense attributed to Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Patent Office, 1899, that "everything that can be invented has been invented", though in fairness to him, there is no substantive evidence that he actually said this. The point is that we cannot know the extent of our ignorance, or the nature of what it is that we do not know. It is illogical to make definitive pronouncements from ignorance about our ignorance. In the much ridiculed, but actually logical language of a former US President, we must accept that there are indeed unknown unknowns.

This is the mistake that is frequently made: people fail to acknowledge that we cannot make dogmatic assertions about what it is that we do not know.

The Longer Argument

My longer argument against dogmatic atheism is contained in a chapter entitled, Seven Truths of Existence in a work⁶ referenced earlier, and I will not repeat it here, other than to summarize what I contend are these seven truths, refuting the common belief that scientific law and natural law are synonymous:

1. Scientific law is a sub-set of natural law and is predicated upon natural law.

2. Natural law is a sub-set of Existence law and is predicated upon Existence Law.

3. The ultimate scope, boundaries, and limits of both natural law and Existence Law are beyond explanation by scientific law.

4. The ultimate scope, boundaries, and limits of these parent law sets being beyond explanation, one can never know when one has discovered all of natural law, let alone Existence Law.

5. The source of natural law cannot be found in natural law.

6. The source of existence cannot be found by the physical sciences; and

7. Existence Law as the source of natural law must transcend natural law and determine it, or is itself, Existence Law.

The essence of the argument is that while we have some knowledge of scientific law, the fact that science continues to make new discoveries is evidence that we cannot know the totality of natural law, nor its origin. Thus, we cannot say with any certainty that God is not the originator of natural law, or that natural law is not simply an expression of God’s existence. Without such knowledge, it cannot be asserted with any confidence that God is not the cause of existence.

Summary

Where does that leave the argument for dogmatic atheism? As I can find no basis in science or logic for claiming that god does not, or could not, exist, it does seem to me that atheism is more a matter of preference than logic, an argument from ignorance rather than knowledge. Our perception of existence and reality is constrained by our inability to know or understand the totality of natural law, and what has caused existence, and we have even less ability to perceive the source of natural law. Scientific Law has arbitrarily separated the concepts of natural and supernatural in its sub-set of understanding, but has no logical basis for doing so at the super-set of what I have termed, existence law. Thus, any claim that a god does not exist cannot be claimed to be based on science, knowledge, or even logic. Again, this does not prove the existence of god, and says nothing about the nature of a possible god, other than that an entity who transcends and determines natural law must be more powerful, more complex, and more intelligent than any existence subject to natural law.

Atheists, and others I would guess, may be inclined to attempt to use the same line of reasoning to assert that a belief in god is equivalent to an argument from ignorance. I have accepted that challenge, and responded in an earlier study by developing an argument for the probability of God, keeping in mind the evidence that many have found, proves to them at least, the case for God’s existence. Remember that by definition, and that is the arbitrary definition of scientists themselves, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god. In fact, science is silent on the issue because God, if he exists, is supernatural