The presentations 11-17-06 by the three professors were interesting. Over the years I have had a great interest in the topic, and, being one who enjoys diversity and different perspectives, I have myself tried to come up with an idea of "God" that would be acceptable and useful to science, philosophy and the various major religions, and in particular to both theists and athiests.

I don't think Prof. Wolterstorff would have any problem with the ideas I'm about to post -- his was a pretty accomodating perspective. I'm not sure how Prof. Zagzebski would respond -- She didn't really talk about what God was or any real descriptions of God as I recall. I guess if these ideas I'm about to present appeal to most folks then she would be likely to agree. The way I see it, even Prof. Draper, who is apparently an athiest (kind of like me...you'll see) would be able to accept this particular idea of God. Let's do a quick review of Draper's perspective.

Prof. Draper's first reason for not believing in God is that naturalism is a simpler hypothesis than theism, requiring one to believe only in one natural entity as opposed to one natural and one supernatural as in theism. I offer a theistic perspective with only one entity.

His second reason for not believing in God is the fact that there are good and evil (and with an all benevolent God there shouldn't be any evil (or at least a lot less than what there is)...at least I think that's what he's saying. In my perspective, good and evil are relative terms -- one person's good is another person's evil. So they do exist, but they are values that we humans attribute to things. So, in a more general, objective and abstract sense we might say that things just are, aside from the judgments we place on them.

He later says that the universe can be comprehended without any appeal to supernatural entities. I can comfortably agree. The "god" I describe below, albeit abstract, can be considered to be the grand unity/integration of all that exists in nature/existence.

Then Prof. Draper refers to consciousness, and how it is so dependent on the nervous system. I'll address this after I present my thoughts on "god" below.

What to say about Prof. Draper's discussion of experiences of God? Hmm.
Are they really having experiences of God?...questions like this could be endless.

Regarding moral agency; I'm not sure why that would be more surprising on either view...
Anyway, here's my philosophy of a God that I believe would be acceptable and useful to the various traditions, disciplines and folks.

What is God?
God is life, existence, being. So let's consider the characteristics/qualities of Life.

Life:
1. Is omnipresent: there's nowhere that existence does not exist.

2. Has unlimited energy: Nature is in a constant state of flux, requiring unlimited energy for transformations to occur.

3. Has unlimited creativity: Because nature is in constant flux, something new is being created at every moment and at every point in creation.

4. Has unlimited intelligence: Everything abides by natural law, thus everything is subject to the organizing principle of creation. Thus there is order, structure and organization everywhere in creation. This organizing principle can be referred to as intelligence.

5. Has unbounded love: Love is connection, integration, co-existence, co-operation. Everything in creation is connected and integrated with everything else, thus love is everywhere.

6. Has unbounded consciousness: Cause and effect occurs everywhere. In order for cause and effect to occur, there must be consciousness. In order for any thing to respond to (i.e. to be effected by) its surroundings, it must be conscious of its surroundings, alert to its surroundings, aware of its surroundings. (Obviously I'm using a very broad definition of consciousness. We typically think of consciousness as restricted to the human (and perhaps animal) experience, but "inanimate" things must be 'aware' of or 'conscious' of their surroundings in order to respond to them).

7. Is eternal: Life is without beginning or end. Everything is connected, and thus everything is unified and one -- there is one being, one life, one existence. And there is nothing outside of this life, because when we life we're referring to all that exists. Thus there can be no change, no intermingling (other than within itself), no coming into or going out of existence, no time, no beginning, middle or end. Life is eternal.

8. Is the source of everything: Life is all there is, and Life, we know, is dynamic and creative, manifesting itself in an infinite variety of ways.

So, then, this is at least one way of coming to the conclusion that God -- the omnipresent, eternal, loving, intelligent, creative, conscious source of all -- is a reasonable idea.
And if we don't like the term God, we call it Life.

So back to the idea of consciousness being dependent on the nervous system. We could say that the mental, emotional and anything that is apparently not physical come from, are a result of, or are dependent on physical stuff (nervous systems, etc.). This might be called a reductionist or materialist or naturalist approach. In contrast, we could say this: Given that the ultimate reality is unity/wholeness, which is complete abstraction (or Spirit or for those who enjoy religious or spiritual terminology), then actually the physical could only be a (apparent) manifestation of, and dependent on, that.

Looking forward to others perspectives!

Omkar

I would offer a different critique of Draper's argument against theism than Omkar above. I think Draper makes the mistake associating all of theism with one particular manifestation of it. Hence his is a kind of straw-man fallacy. Just because some theists insist on miracles and God interacting with history and the natural world does not mean every theist does.

I'm not exactly a theist, but I find the existence of the Absolute (my term for God, Buddha, Tao, etc.) neither supported nor refuted by the completeness of the natural world. I am a physicist and accept evolution and naturalism, but that which could transcend the world cannot be discounted by natural evidence. And scientists ought to be sensitive to arguing that something does not exist, when so many times, science has found things existing where nothing was suspected or expected (energy in empty space, atoms, electrons, bacteria, ultraviolet and infrared light and on and on).

Spirit and matter could intersect without spirit needing to trump nature at any point. Out-of-body experiences are too well documented, both scientifically and anecdotally to assert that there could be no consciousness without the physical body, even if most of the time, the physical body determines what is consciously experienced. Reincarnational memories have been documented as well, suggesting some connection between one life and other lives in the past without any obvious physical explanation.

I find no conflict between a naturalistic explanation of our physical universe with the hypothesis of extra-physical reality. One just has to be open to there being more than can be directly experienced through a physical body.

Lanny Buettner

I believe there has be a God, only because of the fact that every thing that happens, is carefully staged by someone or something.

It cannot all be happening by accident.

/Pat

Once, when I was in a debate over religion, the question “Did God create man or did man create God?” was raised.

The same person then asked, “Wasn’t man the one who needed a God?” He held the view that one would only create that which he needed; According to him, God had no real need for humans, and the Bible itself has example after example that shows man as a failed creation. He said that if an all-powerful God had created man, he would have been so disappointed that he would have permanently removed him from the earth. He would have made another man, one that was perfect. Man, being imperfect, was the one who needed a Supreme Being to look out for him. Therefore, he manufactured God within his own mind, in the image of what he considered an almighty being.

I must admit that I was puzzled by his comments then, and I have yet to find answers to his questions. On another occasion, I was challenged by the question of where Cain got his wife. Considering that the Bible describes Adam and Eve as the sole man and only woman, who bore Cain’s wife? Did she come from outside the garden? Wasn’t the garden the only place where a man and woman existed?

Who has answers to these questions? I'm certain that there are many out there who love to take on such topics just for the sake of argument. Let me know what you think. Shed some light on this issue.

There is a story. Blind men were asked to descrip an elephant. Blind men went near to the elephant and started to touch it carefully. Their descriptions were different respectively depend on which part of elephant they touched.
I would like to say ordinary people are like blind men. Here I would like to introduce you who sees what is and reveal the secrets of the world. He speech about "human being and God" url:http://www.ircsc.com/human_being_and_god.html

There is a story. Blind men were asked to descrip an elephant. Blind men went near to the elephant and started to touch it carefully. Their descriptions were different respectively depend on which part of elephant they touched.
I would like to say ordinary people are like blind men. Here I would like to introduce you who sees what is and reveal the secrets of the world. He speech about "human being and God" url:http://www.ircsc.com/human_being_and_god.html

Square water melons and genetically engineered food are samples that once in a while, life is created. Not a proof, but a plausibility.