I poise a question.

[MindForgedManacle]

When I mention God, I hope it is clear I'm not referring to an invisible flying spaghetti monster, or Zeus, or any other arc-type construct of human kind, those invented transcendental gods (lower case) are obviously not contenders when trying to establish if there is a god or not, and trying to understand what conforms to reality as we know it.

And that's a rather unjustifiable arrogance. The reason those "aren't contenders" are 1) Because two of the world's major religions are monotheistic and 2) Only your narrow experience and ignors Hinduism (which has 1 billion+ adherents), which has both a sort of Supreme Being and lesser gods (it's really diverse from what I gather).

I'm referring to the only God that could conceivably exist. It is between this God, or nothing at all, if we are to honest for a second. The God that could exist would have to still be anchored in reality, and not merely a magical wizard that waves his wand and makes cupcakes anytime he wants. If there is an infinite intelligence in our universe, he must be approached objectively and without silliness.

"The only god that could conceivably exist...", what? I can conceive of lots of kinds of gods existing. Since nothing in the concept of 'Zeus' is logically incoherent, I can conceive of him.
Further, if you hold to the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, you do have to think that God is a magical hand waiving wizard, hence 'Let there be light', and thus it happened.

Funnily enough, you bringing up other gods misses my point entirely. Assuming there even is a god in the first place, and that this god is at least omnipotent and omniscient, HOW do you know it is wholly good? I can clearly imagine a god (assuming omnipotence and omniscience aren't incoherent) that is wholly evil.

This God must needs have always existed; beyond time and space. It is far more likely that there should be nothing at all, no intelligence or self-awareness of intelligent life. If he exists eternally, and has infinite intelligence, and we are new creatures here, new to this life and we have the ability to conceptualize our existence, there must be a reason we are here and we know we are here.

Why is it 'far more likely that there should be nothing at all'? There is no possible way to draw that probabilistic conclusion, because there is necessarily only a sample set of one with regards to reality: either something exists or nothing does.

And we can explain why we are here; that's what science is for. You're impugning purpose onto it without explaining why. And in fact, given that essentially everything we know of that exists goes through some kind of evolutionary process (development of languages, development of musical styles, development of life, etc.), it is an exponentially better inference to explain our existence in those terms. And all you have in return is 'If this, that and the other thing are assumed to be true, then...".

When a finite being, such as a man, a fictional god story of zeus or other obvious man-made entities makes a statement, it is suspect. When a being that transcends us, (like the one infinite God) makes a statement, it is in a different context than that of a finite being's. The law of gravity can't lie, if the law of gravity had freedom to violate itself at will, the fabric of spacetime would have collapsed by now. Part of the description of gravitational phenomenon is that it is a certain way, and we rely on it being a certain way to travel to the moon without fail, we don't worry if its is going to drop us all of a sudden and without warning.

There's that ridiculous arrogance again. I don't see your god as being any less obviously man-made that Zeus, especially given the historical development of Christianity and it's predecessor Judaism. Worse, I think your god is logically incoherent, unlike Zeus.

No it isn't. If God makes the statement "The law of non-contradiction is false.", I can evaluate it the same way I do any other being, and demonstrate God is wrong. The scope of a mind does not change the fact that the mind could be wrong or have ulterior motives.

You are right, I'm framing the real God to be the measure and absolute standard of right and wrong; the horizon line and the only reference point to the universe. An attribute of who he is in his essence is goodness. As i said before, Duality, aka badness and goodness being equal but opposite forces doesn't stand to reason. Badness can't exist on its own, as goodness can. Badness is only goodness out of turn. You can't explain the normal from the deviant, you can explain the deviant form the normal. I think it is reasonable, that if this God exists (the only one worth entertaining and eligible for intelligent discussion), he is trustworthy in not violating his own existence. For him to do so would be supernatural and a form of wizardry I'm not familiar with.

Which is another example of you assuming your god exists and is as you believe it to be. And of course 'badness' can be explained cogently by someone not taking your view. In fact, one of the problems with your 'evil is a privation of good' belief is that it cannot allow for the existence of non-moral actions. I picked up a glass. That action under your view must be considered as evil, since only God is good and anything else is by definition evil. My ontology of ethical values can actually coherently and unabsurbly allow for non-moral actions, and have the added bonus of being intuitively friendly, while not depending on that for its cogency. The short of it is you can view things on a scale, with what is moral being on a spectrum. The closer to the middle of that spectrum an action gets, the less it has moral significance, and upon getting to the middle it becomes non-moral.

And you exhibit more 'my god has a bigger dick and is thus the only one worth discussing' arrogance.

I'm not trying to force any ontology on anyone, merely trying express my view of the question raised in the title of this thread.
Thanks for the reply.

When you make blanket assertions ("evil has no existence of its own", "my god is the only one worth discussing", etc.), you are trying to force your ontology on others, especially if you have to ignore the existence of contrary ontologies to do so.

Thanks for the reply to my reply.