Religion, Science and God

If the God of the monotheistic faiths is not one worthy of worship, then - indeed, a detestable invention, made in humanity's image, if anything, and the vile source of all the evil, pain and suffering in the universe, if not - what kind of God would be worthy of our worship and adoration? To begin with 'he' would not be a 'he' - or a 'she' or an 'it'. A whole new vocabulary would be required to refer to this deity accurately, but even that would not be adequate. I will not even begin to attempt it here. Such a being would be infinite and eternal, immortal and indestructible, like the Jewish and Christian God. S/he would also be personal - though unipersonal, not tri-personal, like the Christian deity (a nonsensical idea!), and rational. There is no question but that s/he would be transcendent and immanent, and omnibenevolent. We can assume that this being is the creator of the universe, and that s/he is omnipresent and omniscient, in the sense cont...

The term "theodicy", as is fairly well-known, was coined by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, from the Greek theos , God, dikē , justice, who tried to defend God on the basis that "all was for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds", an argument for which he was justly excoriated by Voltaire in his satire, Candide . Out of the entire set, or space, of possible worlds, which must be infinite in extent, is there, or are there, no other or others even marginally better than this one, judged by whatever criteria? The French novelist Stendhal argued that "God's only excuse is that he does not exist" ( La seule excuse de Dieu c'est n'existe-pas ). Suppose we turn that round and say, rather, that he exists, therefore he has no excuse? ( Dieu existe, donc il n'a aucune excuse. ) Let us begin by asserting that God exists, and accept that he is eternal, infinite, immortal and indestructible. Let us also accept the traditional (and orthodox) pict...