Religion? of God or Man?: Does God Really Require Religiosity?

By Wayne Talbot

Is there evidence for the existence of God, defined as the transcendent entity responsible for all material existence? The author believes that there is, albeit such evidence is not necessarily proof for everyone. In this two-part study, Wayne Talbot firstly presents the evidence that has convinced him that God is the most plausible explanation. With a limited but sufficient understanding of the nature of existence, in terms of energy, matter, space, and time, he demonstrates his primary axiom: that nothing can explain itself. The natural corollary of this is that scientists will never be able to explain the origins of material existence by examining the material itself. An explanation of origins must always lie outside the entity being examined. This is why scientists cannot explain the origin of the proposed singularity and why some scientists seek an alternative to the Big Bang model of our universe, even resorting to logical absurdities such as the universe creating itself out of nothing while in the presence of something.

With the reality of God being his presupposition for what follows, the author examines the case for monotheistic religions versus polytheistic, concluding that the latter are antithetical to a God who is one. Left with a choice between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, he concludes that if God has communicated his guidance for living to any, it is most likely Judaism as recorded in the Hebrew scriptures. The question becomes, Which parts of those scriptures were intended for the children of Israel alone, and which were for all people for all time? Researching ever deeper, he reveals what he has come to believe about how God wants us to relate to him and the specific guidance that should be reworded for contemporary times. The spirit of Torah is so much more than the mere words.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris AU
• Release date: Feb 9, 2019
• ISBN: 9781796000221

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:      2019900698

ISBN:              Hardcover                              978-1-7960-0024-5

                        Softcover                                 978-1-7960-0023-8

                        eBook                                       978-1-7960-0022-1

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.

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.

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.

Rev. date: 02/07/2019

Xlibris

1-800-455-039

www.Xlibris.com.au

781651

CONTENTS

Author’s Note

PART 1: If Not God, What?

Chapter 1-1:     Introduction

Chapter 1-2:     Preparation

Chapter 1-3:     On The Road

Chapter 1-4:     Discussing Evidence

Chapter 1-5:     The Witness Of Science & Scientists

Chapter 1-6:     The Witness Of Evolutionists

Chapter 1-7:     The Witness Of Others

Chapter 1-8:     Acquiring Knowledge & Truth

Chapter 1-9:     The Role Of Faith

Chapter 1-10:   Dogmatic Atheism

PART 2: Understanding Science

Chapter 2-1:     Seven Truths Of Existence

Chapter 2-2:     The Authority Of Science

Chapter 2-3:     Some Questionable Science

Chapter 2-4:     Limits Of Science

Chapter 2-5:     Something Out Of Nothing

PART 3: Investigating Origins

Chapter 3-1:     The Evolution Debate

Chapter 3-2:     Understanding Evolution

Chapter 3-3:     In The Beginning

Chapter 3-4:     On Infinity

Chapter 3-5:     The Nature Of Existence

Chapter 3-6:     The Question Of Origins

PART 4: Beyond The Material

Chapter 4-1:     The Spirit Hypothesis

Chapter 4-2:     God – Finite Or Infinite

Chapter 4-3:     The Nature Of God

Chapter 4-4:     Seeking Special Revelation

Chapter 4-5:     Summation

PART 5: Monotheistic Religions

Chapter 5-1:     Islam

Chapter 5-2:     Christianity

Chapter 5-3:     Judaism

Chapter 5-4:     Messianic Judaism

Chapter 5-5:     Influence Of Religions

Chapter 5-6:     Religious Freedom

Chapter 5-7:     No (Organised) Religion

Chapter 5-8:     The Same God Cannot Be Different

Intermission

PART 6: Understanding Scripture

Chapter 6-1:     The Lost World Of Genesis One

Chapter 6-2:     The Language Of Scripture

Chapter 6-3:     Ancient And Modern Exegesis

Chapter 6-4:     Mythical Stories

PART 7: Genesis

Chapter 7-1:     Before Creation

Chapter 7-2:     Genesis And Those Days

Chapter 7-3:     Adam And Eve

Chapter 7-4:     Genesis And That Garden

Chapter 7-5:     Genesis And That Fall

Chapter 7-6:     Other Issues In Genesis

Chapter 7-7:     The Number Seven

Chapter 7-8:     Summary

PART 8: Sin, Sacrifice & Redemption

Chapter 8-1:     Understanding Sin

Chapter 8-2:     Understanding Sacrifice

Chapter 8-3:     Understanding Atonement

Chapter 8-4:     Redeem In The Old Testament

Chapter 8-5:     Redeem In The New Testament

Chapter 8-6:     Kinsman Redeemer

Chapter 8-7:     New Testament Apologetics

Chapter 8-8:   Proof Texts

PART 9: Jesus As Redeemer

Chapter 9-1:     Original Sin

Chapter 9-2:     Redemption – From What And Why?

Chapter 9-3:     Necessity For A Redeemer

Chapter 9-4:     What Scripture Really Teaches

Chapter 9-5:     Replacement Theology

PART 10: Living As God Requires

Chapter 10-1:     Second Temple Judaism

Chapter 10-2:     Impossible To Please God?

Chapter 10-3:     Sin And The Commandments

Chapter 10-4:     Law Not Given To Gentiles

Chapter 10-5:     Commandments For Gentiles

Chapter 10-6:     Choosing To Do Good

Chapter 10-7:     Law Versus Behaviour

Chapter 10-8:     Putting It All Together

Appendix A

List of Old Testament References

List of New Testament References

Appendix B:

Sample Commandments

Bibliography

Additional References

AUTHOR’S NOTE

"I have learnt a great deal from scholars, as often as not,

more of what thoughts to reject than to accept."

~ My Own Conclusion ~

In truth, I do not know the truth, of God that is.

That may seem an odd confession coming from one who, in search of truth, spends so much time researching, analysing, contemplating, and documenting his conclusions. Yes, I do believe that what I do believe is true, but belief and truth are not necessarily synonymous. I am confident that some of my beliefs and conclusions are substantiated by fact, but others are properly described as inference to best explanation. When it comes to God, I am convinced that this Jewish definition is accurate: Ein Sof – the Infinite and Unknowable God. Fortunately for me, although perhaps not for the reader, I delight in ambiguity, and am entirely comfortable with not knowing whilst earnestly seeking to know. I am content for some conclusions to be forever beyond my grasp: like the journey, it is the searching that I relish. That said, I have a number of thoughts and conclusions to offer, in regard to God and my views of God.

I do not claim that I am right.

I do not claim that those following a religion are wrong.

My choice, an informed one I believe, is based on a detailed examination of multiple religions, resulting in my acceptance of none. So what is religiosity? According to one source: Religiosity is difficult to define, but different scholars have seen this concept as broadly about religious orientations and involvement.¹ From my perspective, any philosophy or worldview which is difficult to define, is unworthy of adherence. Nevertheless, it is said to include experiential, ritualistic, ideological, intellectual, consequential, creedal, communal, doctrinal, moral, and cultural dimensions. Sociologists, seemingly wanting to add scholarly dimensions to the obvious: have observed that the people’s beliefs, sense of belonging, and behaviour often are not congruent with an individual’s actual religious beliefs since there is much diversity in how one can be religious or not. How very curious.

Which brings us to religions: I am not confident that God even requires us to follow a particular religion, using the following definition cobbled together from various sources:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems of designated behaviours and practices, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of deities), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions have sacred histories and narratives, which may be preserved in sacred scriptures, and symbols and holy places, that aim mostly to give a meaning to life. Religions may contain symbolic stories, which are sometimes said by followers to be true, that have the side purpose of explaining the origin of life, the universe, and other things. Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs.

Here let me briefly explain the title and subtitle of this book: Religion? Of God or Man? Does God Really Require Religiosity. I shall explain in more detail later, but for now, consider that names are given to things to both identify and differentiate them. When there is only one of a thing, it being unique, we give it a name so as to be able to refer to it, but there is no need to differentiate, because there is nothing from which to differentiate it. This, I believe, is the case for how we should walk with God. The term Judaism did not arise until it became necessary in the minds of some, to identify the religion practised in Judea. The Children of Israel had no such need, and I can find no reference to them giving a name to the way they observed their covenant with God, other than their being Torah-observant. This is the underlying theme of this study: we have no need to differentiate a religion, as given in the above definition, because we should all be walking with God in one sense, in the same way, and in another sense, in individual ways. (Excuse the apparent paradox, but I will attempt to resolve it later in this study.) We could give that walk a name, perhaps as the early Nazarenes were identified, Followers of the Way, but only for the sake of reference. Otherwise, we would be left with the incoherence, so often heard today, You know….

That said, I do not outright reject all aspects of any religion, for all contain much that is good. Putting my cards on the table, so to speak, I believe in one Sovereign God, best described by that Jewish term, Ein Sof – the Infinite and Unknowable God. I believe it to be axiomatic, that if God is infinite, then He is unknowable by finite beings. We exist in a finite world, everything bounded by something in some way, and even the concept of infinity is beyond our understanding. Whilst we can know about what we believe God has done, and continues to do, we cannot know God as an entity. We can assume aspects of His nature, logically determining, for example, that being infinite, He is outside time and space as we understand them, and likely knows everything that ever has, or ever will happen in our finite existence. Thus, He is omniscient. Note that omniscience is not an intrinsic attribute of God, but derives from His omnipresence.

We can also assume that if God is the cause of our finite existence, then He must be very powerful indeed, perhaps even omnipotent, whatever that may mean for an infinite being. Parts 1-4 of this study document why I have reasoned my way into a belief in God. In that sense, I am an intellectually fulfilled theist, appropriating the sense of Richard Dawkins’ claim of being an intellectually fulfilled atheist².

Accepting for the sake of argument that this infinite entity, hereinafter referred to as God, does actually exist, this brings us to the question: Has God advised us of how He would like us to conduct ourselves in this world? If He is our Creator, then I believe it plausible that He has done so, rather than just cast us adrift to find our way through jungles, swamps, deserts, and every trial and tribulation that Nature can throw us, and even worse, those that we create for ourselves. The question becomes: To whom, and how, would He have provided this guidance, and would He have provided different, even contradictory guidance to successive generations in different cultures across nations and time? I have reason to believe this to be possible (with a caveat on contradictory), even likely, as circumstances change and cultures evolve, but would nevertheless contend that at a fundamental level, there must be some eternal truth. God, as I will later argue, must be immutable, and so any truth concerning the nature of God, and how He may interact with His Creation, must be reliable and faithful.

Most especially, He would not contradict Himself (at least I hope not).

Revealing my hand, so to speak, I will later explain why I believe that if God has communicated directly to any group, and if those communications have been faithfully recorded, then as best as I can ascertain, the Hebrew Scriptures are the most reliable representation of such communications. The Hebrew Scriptures, or Tanach, are referred to in Christendom as the Old Testament, but let me assure you that these two are not the same: similar yes, but the same, no. We will briefly explore that issue a little later as well. On that basis, I am given to accept the underlying narrative of Judaism, as found in their Scriptures, and find beauty and wisdom in the Talmud (Mishnah plus Gemara), and other works such as Pirkei Avot – Ethics of the Fathers. If I were to follow any religion, it would be Judaism, but I do not, because there is no such religion which could be described as Catholic (universal) Judaism. There are many denominations or sects, just as there are in other mainstream religions, and to accept just one would be to reject the others, despite their degree of commonality.

Thomas Paine (1737-1809), an English-born American political activist, philosopher, political theorist and revolutionary, expressed his thoughts similar to mine: I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of … Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all. Paine was a deist, i.e., he believed in God, although just what he believed about God is unclear. I suspect that he and I would have disagreed on many points, but I digress.

With the possible exception of Judaism as described in Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures), I contend that all religions are man-made, not one is THE religion of God, although all religions point to some aspect of God, however conceived. There is good in all, as even those believing that theirs is the only way to God, unconsciously recognise by quoting Confucius, Buddha, Moses, Jesus, and other luminaries of religious history. I find it curious that even a secular organisation like the United Nations, headquartered in New York, with representatives holding to practically every religion, nevertheless has an inscription on a wall from the Jewish prophet Isaiah: They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, nation shall not lift up swords against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isaiah 2:4). Even more remarkable is how anti-Israel the UN has become, accepting terrorist activities by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah with barely a whimper, let alone condemnation. Nation shall not lift up swords against nation - indeed!

However, I am getting ahead of myself, sort of.

I believe it incumbent upon all authors to state their presuppositions before using them as foundational to their arguments. This I have now done, but would offer that they are only now presuppositions for this book, other studies having started without such presuppositions, and the presuppositions that I now hold as foundational are conclusions from those earlier studies. In a sense, this book is autobiographical, documenting my own intellectual journey to what I now have come to believe. Admittedly, further research may have me changing my ideas again, but for now, this is where I am at.

The perception of God usually derives from acceptance of a religion – God is whom the religion says He is. Put another way, religion is read back into the nature of God, commonly in an anthropomorphic way, because that is the best we anthropomorphic beings can do. It is a truism that we can only understand our own reality – even science fiction writers ascribe human characteristics to the alien creatures that they create. I am attempting to traverse the theological path from the other end: beginning with an attempt to validate the proposition of God. After that, I shall enquire as to the validity of religions, both specifically and generally. I am not anti-religious, there is good and bad in all of them: my intention in this study is to further explore a subject about which I remain ambivalent: What is God’s view of manmade religions?

And so from here, we shall begin at the beginning, acknowledging as admitted by perhaps the greatest of scientists, Sir Isaac Newton:

I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.³

Getting Even Further Ahead of Myself

If the reader has read any of my previous works, you will be aware that I do not always accept traditional interpretations of the Old Testament, especially when the vary from the Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew Scriptures. Even then, it is my considered opinion that many interpretations, both Christian and Jewish, make God too small. At issue is His omniscience. If God is truly omniscient, and I believe that He is, then He will perfectly plan every detail of issues that are important to His objectives – nothing will be left to chance, or to the foibles of humanity.

Accepting that God exists, and was responsible for our existence, we must also accept that God knew what He was doing when He chose to grant us free will, and the ability to sin against Him. What the Jews describe as our yetzer harah, our inclination to sin, was a deliberate choice by God, of what was to be necessarily intrinsic to our nature. That is not to suggest that we have a sinful nature, for we also have a yetzer hatov – an inclination to do good. Our task is to choose the latter over the former, and it is on our choices that we will be judged. Judaism teaches that We come into the world neither carrying the burden of sin committed by our ancestors, nor tainted by it⁴, rejecting the notion of original sin. I entirely agree, and this provides one of the platforms for my reasoning in this book.

Obviously, such a belief entails a non-Christian interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis, and to an extent, what I offer herein, is not entirely consonant with Jewish teachings on the subject either. However, I do contend that it is logical, if one starts with the premise that God being omniscient, there can be no oopsies in our spiritual trajectory, and at no time was God forced to implement Plan B, lamenting: I didn’t see that coming! God saw everything that was coming, and is to come, and His Plan includes the necessary contingencies to ensure that His desired outcome will result, irrespective of whatever we do.

Thus, my major premise: God had but One Plan from before Creation, and being both omniscient and omnipotent, God formulated it such that He would never need to change His mind, nor revert to Plan B, C, or any other. There was but one plan from the beginning, it continues to this day, and will continue to the End of Days. My choice, my deliberate and considered choice, is to always interpret the Scriptures in that light. I reject any interpretation or doctrine which is contrary to that premise.

I trust God, and when He advised Isaiah: "I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness" (Isaiah 45:19), I believe that we should take God at His Word, even beyond the context of this exchange. Yes, there can be levels of meaning, and I contend, this is one of them. But first, we must come to appreciate that God’s Word in Genesis was not spoken in English, or any other language, but in Hebrew as it was even before the time of Moses. Thus even Moses must have interpreted to some extent. We explore that issue in later chapters: I believe that it is imperative that we do so, lest we impose our own cultural meaning on these ancient texts.

That said, I am like any other, and can only rely on my own intellect. As Jewish rabbis have observed regarding the differing opinions on Halacha (Jewish Law – the path that one walks):

And even when his wisdom leads him to err, he is nonetheless beloved by God as long as he has used his best reasoning. And this person is by far preferred to the person who determines the Halacha from within one work, without knowing the reason, walking like a blind person along the way.⁵

In a sense, each of us is walking like a blind person, for none of us can grasp the truth of Ein Sof – the Infinite and Unknowable God. The first question must be of course, why do I believe in God when so many others, often far more intelligent than I, do not? Why do I have a different view of God, than that expressed by religions? I try my best to not start books without substantiating my presuppositions. So let us start with my reasoning for why the existence of God is more plausible than any other reason for our own finite existence.

As I should have done from the beginning, I shall now start at the beginning.

Wayne Talbot

Kelso NSW Australia

January, 2019

REFERENCES:

1.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity

2.   Dawkins, Richard, The Greatest Show on Earth – the Evidence for Evolution, Bantam Press, London, 2009

3.   From Brewster, Memoirs of Newton (1855), English mathematician & physicist (1642 - 1727)

4.   https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-jewish-view-of-sin/

5.   Cardozo, Rabbi Nathan Lopez, Jewish Law as Rebellion: A Plea for Religious Authenticity and Halachic Courage, Urim Publications, Jerusalem, Israel, 2017, p. 71 (quoting Netivot Olam, Netiv ha-Torah, end of chap. 15)

PART 1

IF NOT GOD, WHAT?

Acknowledgements

"Every author, however modest, keeps a most outrageous vanity chained like a madman

in the padded cell of his breast."

~ Logan Pearsall Smith (1865-1946) ~

As I am sure many others have found, the enduring joy in a work such as this is not in the writing, but in the reading that circumscribes it; not in the expounding of knowledge, but in the enquiring to obtain truth. So often when I have started on a particular subject, I realised that I knew less than I had thought, that I had mistaken familiarity for competence, and upon that realisation, it was back to researching the extensive achievements of so many authors and scholars. Thus hopefully, I have defeated the outrageous vanity said to be lurking.

I am indebted to a great many authors for their scholarly research and publications, without which, I would have little substantive evidence to build my own propositions. One author who has particularly influenced my thinking is Professor Edgar Andrews, a man of science, and of God, demonstrating in the clearest way imaginable that science and theology need not conflict. If we approach each discipline with humility and intellectual honesty, we will avoid the category mistakes to which so many are seemingly predisposed. A second author to whom I am most indebted is C.S. Lewis: his light humour, clarity of thought, and simplicity of expression I would like to emulate. However, his insistence on mere christianity, devoid of internal intellectual squabbling, is commendable only up to a point, for some issues are worth squabbling about, but always in the nicest possible way.

Oswald Chambers makes the point, The author who benefits you most is not the one who tells you something you did not know before, but the one who gives expression to the truth that has been dumbly struggling in you for utterance; the words of Andrews and Lewis continue to resonate within me, giving expression to those thoughts that I have been unable to utter without assistance.

For historical background and responses to various forms of criticism, several authors have contributed to my understanding, and while listing many in the Bibliography but quoting only some, I will mention just one here because of the concise and organised way he has provided his material: Josh McDowell. If I was asked to recommend just one book which competently summarised the best reasoning for the authenticity of Christianity, it would be his The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Assessed as presented, the evidence is compelling, and readers would need to look into their hearts to discover why this book would not move them to further enquiry, as it did me, initially at least. However, the more I studied, the more I began to see the evidence differently, and I realised that I had been taking the author’s words at face value, rather than exploring beneath. Enquiring further, I have concluded that Josh McDowell has been very selective in his evidence, and has succumbed to a degree of confirmation bias, as we all do. However, one should give credit where credit is due, even when one disagrees with the how evidence for a proposition is treated. I am not a Christian, although I once was, but I respect views sincerely held, always provided that such do not lead to the physical harm of others.

To the authors who have addressed the same evidence and whose works I have listed at the end of the book, I trust that I have in no way offended you by singling out this one volume. It is just that I recognise that not all potential readers are privileged to have access to the same number and variety of books as I have been.

The list of reference works evidence authors from a range of backgrounds and philosophies, from people who have throughout their lives put their faith in God, to others who at one time proclaimed their atheistic beliefs but have subsequently recanted; from Bible believing Christians who argue that evolution is the process God chose for His creative works, to those who reject the General Theory of Evolution as "a fairy tale for grown-ups. Scientists, lawyers, journalists, historians, academics, clerics, and lay theologians are all represented giving the lie to the claim that science, in the age of enlightenment, has made God redundant. If anything, the mysteries of science become more mysterious the deeper we delve into the obscure world of material existence. As one author noted in relation to science, the world [is] more mysterious than it ever was. We know better than we did what we do not know and have not grasped." On the surface, all looks solid and tangible; below the surface, scientists resort to anthropomorphisms to describe the particles that we can neither see nor understand: it is as if we have to resort to our understanding of people to explain the existence of people. Many seem not to understand that being made in the image of God, we can best be explained by understanding God, always provided, of course, that one accepts the premise of divine creationism.

The general thrust of Christian works has been to verify the authenticity of the Biblical record in relation to Jesus of Nazareth specifically, but of course, the weakness in their argument is the presupposition of the reality of God. They may be right, but it occurs to me that we need to step back and re-examine the case for God. One study that I would highly recommend is "Who Made God" by Edgar Andrews. You may not agree with his conclusions, but I guarantee that you will find this book both entertaining and thought provoking. If the events of the New Testament record were verified, one must stipulate to the existence of God. However, let me declare that I do not accept the authenticity of the Christian narrative, but it is not without some truth as I have come to believe, and nevertheless provides circumstantial evidence of an underlying theme. Other books address the issue of God more directly, from a scientific, philosophical, and theological viewpoint. For the atheist or agnostic, those books narrating the individual authors’ journey from atheism to Christianity should be of particular interest.

There are a number of chapters in this book which draw heavily, if not entirely, on the works of others, and these are so acknowledged in their proper place. Other chapters are the products of my own thinking (or perhaps imagination), and while some conclusions may be seen as original though of dubious validity, the facts underpinning them represent the works of many people throughout history.

I do not claim to be able to prove to anyone that the existence of God is beyond dispute. I simply claim that many who have diligently examined the evidence for God have found it to be so. In presenting the evidence, the goal is not to win a debate, but to encourage others that the journey of seeking truth is exceptionally rewarding in so many ways beyond the immediate goal. The authors whom I quote in this book, and the ones I have read but not directly quoted, are all of the same mindset: ultimately, our purpose is the acceptance of the sovereignty of God, and I thank them for reminding me.

REFERENCES:

1.   Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1952

2.   Chambers, Oswald, My Utmost For His Highest, Barbour Publishing Inc., Uhrichville, OH, 1963, 15th December

3.   McDowell, Josh, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1999

4.   Comfort, Ray, Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Grownups, Bridge Logos Pub, 2008

5.   Berlinski, David, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions, Basic Books, New York, NY, 2009, p. xv

6.   Andrews, Edgar, Who Made God? Searching for a Theory of Everything, EP Books, Darlington, England, 2009

CHAPTER 1-1

INTRODUCTION

"No man is an island, entire of itself…any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

~ John Donne (1572 – 1631) ~

In a previous book¹, I sought to refute the contention that the General Theory of Evolution was scientifically proven. I argued that the evidence provided by Richard Dawkins in "The Greatest Show on Earth"² failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. In structuring the refutation, I deliberately refrained from advancing or supporting any alternate theory of origins, asserting that if evolution is a scientific theory, it ought to stand or fall on scientific evidence alone. Whether alternate theories are considered implausible or otherwise is irrelevant to the scientific case.

I followed that study with a self-published book, "If Not God, What?"³, in which I sought to present the evidence for an alternate theory of origins: Divine Creation, and some of what follows from that premise. I offered that the existence of the supernatural is more probable than not. In support, I presented a line of reasoning that explored the nature of this supernatural entity - his attributes, his actions, his revelations, and what his existence means for humanity. Without apology, I used the male form of the personal pronoun for reasons that will become obvious, as I repeat some arguments in this study, but from the outset, simply because the prose is less cluttered. This book, then, begins with the arguments from that earlier study. I thought it worthwhile that rather than start with the presupposition of the existence of God, that I should re-establish the foundations for my belief.

This is a complex subject, one that is difficult to treat in a sequence that would appeal to all potential readers. Objections abound from all directions and it would be impossible to deal with them as they arise in the individual reader’s mind. I ask your indulgence and offer that I will get to them, at least most that I know of and occur to me personally, but at the point that I believe to be most appropriate consistent with the development of the argument.

I would prefer to offend no-one, but any discussion on the nature of God will inevitably arouse the ire of those who hold to a different philosophy or theology. If God represents the ultimate truth, there can be but one ultimate truth in that regard, and thus there can be only one true definition of God. It is entirely possible that every human definition of God is wrong, but equally impossible that all are right. Where I assert, as I will, that certain belief systems are misguided or in error, I would ask the reader to evaluate my line of reasoning rather than simply hurl abuse. I am all too aware of my own fallibility, and while I try to be as objective and logical as humanly possible, I am also aware that none of us is entirely free of bias.

As much as anything, this book documents my own search for truth. My journey from a disregard for a Christian upbringing through a long period of disinterest in matters supernatural, a period of wondering whether God was important or not, to the eventual realisation that this is the most important question any of us can ask. On reflection, I note how so many people spend the first twenty to thirty years of their lives, a longish Spring, in earnest endeavour preparing for the next few decades of their Summer, to accumulate sufficient resources to last them through the Autumn and Winter that hopefully follow. We spend years at school, college, and university; encumber ourselves with debt in the belief that such investment will ensure security and happiness; study subjects that we think will enhance our career prospects; attend lectures and seminars; embrace self-help and self-improvement programs - all so that the brief period of our working lives, fifty years at best for most of us, will be productive, and enable us to live another thirty years or so in comfortable retirement. Yet, strangely, so few invest even a modicum of effort in preparing for the eternity that may come after this life on Earth. Surveys regularly report that between 60% and 90% of people have some belief in the supernatural, and some lesser percentage believe in an after-life. Even so, the majority that holds to this belief seem indifferent to its significance. On the subject of an after-life, I have come to no firm conclusion: it may exist, and equally, it may not. We will discuss this later in the study.

My Background

Like so many of my generation, born during or immediately after World War II, the Baby Boomers as we are called, schooled in the 1950’s, swinging through the 60’s, rebelling in the 70’s, I had a Christian upbringing. After eight years in a Catholic boys’ boarding school, I was ready for the freedoms and opportunities of the post-war boom. I at no stage rejected God entirely: I was simply indifferent and acted as if He was irrelevant.

Later in life, having achieved many more goals than I would ever have dreamed of while growing up, I began to ponder my future. My concern was not just in terms of the remaining years in this life, but what I could expect in the next, if anything. As the 21st Century dawned, the New Atheism espoused by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris was taking hold on Western society in ways not yet appreciated by many. Secular humanism and pluralism became the underlying philosophies of previously Christian governments, and even conservative Christian ministries seemed more concerned with being relevant to modern society than adhering to the orthodox precepts of the Bible they considered Holy Writ. Established truth has been rejected in favour of relativism; evidence not supported by hard science is deemed myth; and globalization has seen tolerance of peoples and cultures morph into acceptance of any and all philosophies, and a commitment to none.

In attempting to make sense of the world in which I found myself, not previously having paid much attention in that sense, it seemed reasonable to assume that I was not alone in my confusion and concern. Many educated people throughout the ages had documented their thoughts on the issues, and it only remained for me to research them and come to my own conclusions. In many ways I have been alone in my endeavours. My immediate circle of family, friends, and acquaintances are mostly atheist, agnostic, or indifferent: thus I lacked any intellectual environment in which to challenge my own thoughts. If that is apparent in what follows, you will at least understand why that is so.

My studies have included biographies, the history of modern science, numerous scientific disciplines, philosophy, theology, history, comparative religion, and many related subjects. I am, in a sense, calm and detached regarding truth: I have no fear of the truth nor any preference for what it should be, I just want to know what it is, though in this search I am anything but detached. I value intellectual integrity highly, though failing to achieve the level of intellectual accomplishment that I seek. I can only assure the reader that I have done the best I can with the talents afforded me. Any errors of logic and deduction are mine alone, but I would ascribe them to a lack of knowledge or understanding, rather than deliberate bias or selective evaluation of the facts. Though eschewing any preferred position during my journey, I will admit to now having arrived at a worldview entirely predicated on the acceptance of a sovereign God, although just how involved He is in my existence is beyond my understanding. Though it was not comfort that I sought, it is indeed comfort that I have found in the knowledge that all truth is God’s truth, and I ought not be afraid of whatever truth is out there.

We will get to the detail a little later but as I am sure that it is already in the mind of the reader, I will address this issue just briefly. I believe in the historical authenticity of the Hebrew Scriptures, but only up to a point. As the Jewish Sages describe it: "The Hebrew Bible is not a book, but a whole literature comprising history, myth, lyric poetry, and impassioned ideology."⁴ Most especially, I have my own thoughts concerning the historicity of the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis, but we will come to that. I accept some aspects of the historical record of the New Testament, but have reasoned doubts about many of the sayings, and most notably events that were not witnessed by anyone. My thoughts on these can be found in the four books listed under Theology at the beginning of this book. I do not believe the autographs to be inerrant or infallible, nor do I accept modern Bibles to be totally accurate in their translations. Having studied some thirty different versions, from Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and English sources, I have encountered numerous discrepancies that I deem significant. Similarly, we are not necessarily in possession of the correct interpretation of the authors’ original meaning in all cases, which makes any claim of inerrancy somewhat moot: what is the point of claiming that the text is correct if one is uncertain of the meaning? I acknowledge the conundrum here, but would offer that I have resolved it in my other works, certainly to my own satisfaction if not yours. But here I just wanted to reveal my own worldview lest anyone think that I am being less than honest.

If you should be interested, I have published a study on bible inerrancy here⁵.

This Study

The first part of this study, as originally published, was intended as a companion volume to The Dawkins Deficiency. Evolution had been offered as a scientific explanation for the origin of life on Earth, but I argued that there is insufficient scientific evidence to find evolution guilty of the acts for which it stands accused. I have another suspect, God, and the intent of that earlier book was to present the evidence that had convinced me that God is indeed responsible for all existence. I believe God to be sovereign and in control, and where He is directly responsible for some things, He is indirectly responsible for others. He has granted us free will, allowing us to make our own mistakes, but He holds us accountable for how we treat each other, and the rest of His creation.

When asked why I feel compelled to share my faith, I unhesitatingly reply: "because I am involved in mankind". But it is not an individual’s physical death that diminishes me, it is one’s spiritual death that so distresses me, because it has such tragic and quite possibly, enduring consequences. I am not unaware of the wrenching impact of losing loved ones. I was separated from my mother before my ninth birthday; my own daughter, an only child, was killed at nineteen; my younger sister, whom I found much later in life, succumbed to cancer after I had known her just a short time; her partner was tragically killed in a motorcycle accident just a few years later; my father died too early; and I have attended the funerals of many friends, young and old. Death and separation have been regular acquaintances in my life.

As we are born, we all shall die, dust to dust, but whether we will die spiritually, spending our forever (if there is one) separated from God, or whether we will live joyfully in His eternal presence, is a choice each of us must make. The bell doth indeed toll for thee.

An oft repeated contention is that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Many claim that all religion is simply based on faith; some would say blind faith; and others again claim that man created god for various reasons – whether one believes or not is essentially a choice of what works for the individual in this life. Here, I argue for the existence of God. My goal is to encourage readers to set aside their arbitrary rejection of God, or perhaps their apathy and indifference, and to examine the evidence that has led others to a new life. That said, we must not place too much emphasis on physical evidence, logic, and reason alone - there is a major role for faith. Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker if I recall correctly, wrote that evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist": if evolution is proven false, where then his fulfilment? I want to help people understand that irrespective of the truth of evolution, there is persuasive evidence for being an intellectually fulfilled theist. However, if my arguments in this book convince you of God, then just as likely, a more persuasive argument will cause you to change your mind. The choice is yours alone.

Let me offer that if you deny the existence of the supernatural, declaring the notion of God to be nonsense, then it is impossible for you to hear a spiritual message. If you are not spiritually attuned, you cannot discern things of the spirit. Just as some are physically blind, and sadly cannot fully appreciate the beauty of the physical world, and the deaf cannot appreciate the beauty of audible music, the spiritually blind can never appreciate the beauty of the spiritual dimension of our lives, nor can they discern the message of our Creator. Many ask for the reality of God’s existence, but fail to acknowledge that reality is a two-way street. In asking for such reality, can they attest to the reality of their own honesty and sincerity when asking the question, or have they cynically already made up their minds?

I alluded to it earlier, but my purpose in conducting such a detailed examination of the possibility of God, before getting into the subject of religions, is twofold:

1. In my writings, I attempt to avoid unsubstantiated presuppositions: discussing religion without identifying God is to start in the middle, not in the beginning; and

2. As will later be demonstrated, theologies are often contrary to the nature of the god on which the religion is founded, a most curious state of affairs. Essentially, theologians have often lost the plot in their attempt to explain the unexplainable.

Finally, debate on some of the finer points of theology is generally absent from this work, except where I contend that it impinges on my understanding of God, as developed in the following chapters. Though once a Christian, my study of Christianity has me concluding that Christian theology, in an attempt to rationalise Jesus as Messiah, Saviour, and Son of God, actually denies the infinitude of God. If Christian theologians began their books with a definition of the God in whom they believe, they might be persuaded to not write as they have done. We will discuss this issue in later chapters.

Laying my cards on the table, so to speak, I will conclude for the authenticity of some, but not all, fundamentals of the Judaeo-Christian narrative. In this study, however, I will limit my opinions to issues that are relevant only to the nature of God, as I have come to understand. As an aside, should you be interested in why I have walked away from the Christian religion, I have carefully documented my reasoning in an earlier publication, Once A Christian⁶.

REFERENCES:

1.   Talbot, Wayne, The Dawkins Deficiency – Why Evolution is Not the Greatest Show on Earth, Deep River Books, Sisters, OR, 2011

2.   Dawkins, Richard, The Greatest Show on Earth – the Evidence for Evolution, Bantam Press, London, 2009

3.   Talbot, Wayne, If Not God What? On Being an Intellectually Fulfilled Theist, Peshat Books, Kelso, NSW, 2012

4.   MacCoby, Hyam, Revolution in Judaea: Jesus & The Jewish Resistance, Ocean Books, London, UK, 1973, p. 64

5.   Talbot, Wayne, Bible Inerrancy: Fact or Fiction? The Inerrancy of God’s Word versus the Fallibility of Human Interpretation, Peshat Books, 2012

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

CHAPTER 1-2

PREPARATION

"Wonder, rather than doubt, is the root of knowledge."

~ Abraham Joshua Heschel ~

As best I can, I have attempted to set out the case in a logical sequence. I considered that there were some topics that were required to be covered in a preamble, establishing foundational principles before exploring other topics in more detail. Thus this first part seeks to unsettle the mind of the sceptic, casting doubt on what many hold to be true, and encouraging wonder about issues that are, for the most part, kept hidden, unrecognised, or simply ignored.

Recalling that insightful Bob Dylan song, Blowin’ in the Wind,

"How many times can a man turn his head, and pretend that he just doesn’t see."

The Logic of Objections

It is instructive to read of, and listen to, the objections of those who assert that there is no god. Some, of that persuasion, simply state that they do not believe, and that’s that. Others will say that on the evidence that they see around them, there could not be a god, particularly of the type taught in Christianity. Richard Dawkins likes to posit that human life could not be designed, because no sensible designer would have done it that way. The evolutionist will say that people believe in gods because they evolved to need one. The material-monists will assert that everything is material, and thus there is neither room nor need for anything that is not material. And most absurd of all, the argument from science. Science is the study of the material world, and as science has not detected anything non-material, then nothing non-material, including god, can exist.

That may appear as logic to some people, but it is logic of a form that I neither recognise nor respect. That said, I am ever cognisant of this Jewish wisdom:

For one who avidly seeks the truth, a refutation of his words is much more valuable than a proof to support his viewpoint. So much so that our Sages often tried to refute their own opinions.(Brachoth 33a; Shabboth 128b; Eruvin 9b, 88a; Gittin 38b; Kiddushin 50b; Menachoth 49a)

Confusion with Religion

Another major difficulty, for many people, is that they are unable to consider the possibility of a god absent of a religious context. God and religion are not synonymous: if god does exist, such existence is independent of our understanding of god. Religion is an expression of a human understanding of a god, or gods, which is why we have so many religions, and the number continues to grow. In fact, religions are generally culturally bound. Prior to Judaism, religions across the world were polytheistic (many gods), as many remain today. The inference here is that people were trying to envisage god anthropomorphically, i.e., in the image of humans. Others envisaged god in terms of physical phenomena, like cats, dogs, lightning, thunder, mountains, rivers, the moon, the sun, and so on.

The difficulty with understanding an infinite, transcendent entity is that we lack the facility to do so, limited as we are with our finite minds and experience. Nobody really knows what an infinite is anyway. How do we understand something having no beginning and no end, always existing, having no before and no after? What does it mean to say that God is everywhere, yet nowhere, for the constraints of time and space do not apply to an infinite? How do we understand that the laws of science, as limited as our knowledge of them truly is, does not apply to god because rather than him being subject to them, they are subject to him? How can we ask: what was god doing before he created the universe, when in infinite time, there are no gradations, and thus before can only refer to sequence, not to the Friday before last? How do we understand that you cannot traverse an infinite continuum, because no matter how you may think you move, infinity still stretches fore and aft: you get no closer, nor further away?

It is entirely understandable that in modern times, people are unable to separate the concept of god, from the religions which attempt to express their understanding of god. In this study, however, that is precisely what we will attempt to do. I wish to take the reader on a thought experiment, one where we seek evidence wherever we can find it, and evaluate it absent of any religious presuppositions.

Contribution of Implied Agreement

As an analyst working in a number of commercial environments, I developed an analysis technique I termed, the Contribution of Implied Agreement. Simply put, if people argue about the details of an event, the fact of the argument itself tends to confirm the occurrence of the event, even if the details are in dispute. I often had to analyse why certain business processes were not working as they should. Working through the sequence, I found employees with different ideas on what they were doing and why. Some thought that the upstream process would have sorted an issue, and others that it was the responsibility of a downstream process. That everyone recognised that something should have been happening evidenced what was missing. Using this thinking, I was able to construct the essence of the required process as much from what was not being done, as from what was.

This approach has value in any analysis task. It is easy to dismiss an issue on the basis of insufficient evidence, but that is to miss the value of the implied agreement that some evidence does exist, as long as we can appreciate its contribution.

Looking back through history, it seems to be that all cultures have had gods. As best as I can find in the literature that I have accessed, there have always been atheists, but never atheistic cultures. Putting aside the evolutionists’ argument, which we must recognise as nothing but speculation in an attempt to support their arguments, we have substantive evidence of this long held belief. Just where that belief came from must always be the subject of speculation. Some will argue that belief in god arose in primitive cultures through sheer ignorance of what caused lightning and thunder, the rains to come some years and not others, and other superstitions. Perhaps so, but in our modern world, some have come to a belief in God through knowledge and science, as I will later demonstrate. The sub-title of my earlier study on which this book is partly based, read: on being an intellectually fulfilled theist - my personal attestation that God can be found by examining the evidence.

I do not believe in the overarching narrative of evolution, not because I believe in God, for such belief does not rule out evolution - it is religion that argues against evolution. You will find people who believe in both God and evolution, even Christians. I disbelieve evolution on the evidence, as I explain in my two books on the subject ¹ ². I do not believe in the evolution of intelligence: knowledge, yes, but intelligence, no, and thus cannot believe in the evolution of humans from apes. I believe that our ancestors were just as intelligent as we moderns, but lacking scientific knowledge, they made do with superstition to explain otherwise unexplainable events - even moderns are susceptible to superstition. If you examine the literature from nearly four millennia back in time, you will gain a sense of the intelligence and wisdom that has long prevailed. I think it was C.S. Lewis who coined the term, chronological snobbery, to describe the belief that moderns are more intelligent than the ancients.

I have no evidence to explain why a belief in god, or gods, has existed across the world as far back as we can research. What I do not accept, however, is that it evolved through necessity, or that the ancients were just ignorant and thus superstitious. On that basis, let us see what we can learn from the evidence that can be found if we objectively seek it.

REFERENCES:

1.   Talbot, Wayne, The Dawkins Deficiency – Why Evolution is Not the Greatest Show on Earth, Deep River Books, Sisters, OR, 2011

2.   Talbot, Wayne, Information, Knowledge, Evolution and Self, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2016

CHAPTER 1-3

ON THE ROAD

"If you do not know where you are going, any road will get you there"

~ Lewis Carroll ~

A Logical Case

In this study, I seek boldly, or perhaps foolishly, to construct a logical examination of a number of issues which are incapable of resolution by scientific or other empirical methods. There are numerous decision points in the argument where no firm truth can be established, but possibilities and probabilities can be evaluated, and thus a line of thought pursued on that basis. There is much inference to best explanation, but again, such inferences are not indisputable, because the foundational premise is often assumption. I admit this from the start, but would contend that so many materialistic and scientific arguments are similarly constructed, as we shall see. In a sense, my arguments follow the scientific method, in that observations give rise to hypotheses which are then tested against other observations. But my thesis is not science, it is philosophy and theology.

As I have stated from the outset, and will from time to time reiterate, I do not claim to be able to prove the existence of God and related propositions. My contention is that there are reasonable grounds for individuals to pursue the subject in more detail, rather than as many do, simply treat it with ignore either because there is no proof, or because it is a matter of personal choice. I would argue that if God does exist, awareness of what He expects of us is paramount. Choosing to ignore God may be the worst mistake any of us can make, the consequences more grave than any we could ever imagine.

In this study, I am attempting to demonstrate the reasonableness of a belief in God. I fully expect that if people genuinely open their hearts and minds to Him, they will indeed find that not only is the belief reasonable, but that the truth will become apparent. It is my contention that those who disbelieve the existence of God, or who lead lives as if they disbelieve, do so by choice. Their choice is based on their desire of what they want to be true, not because there is compelling evidence for their choice. Many simply do not want to be held accountable for their actions.

I would not claim that there is only one logical sequence for evaluating the proof points of my argument: I am confident that there are many, but I have structured this book in the sequence that appears logical to me. In some instances, I have effectively reverse-engineered the argument as a consequence of finding unanswered questions, and backtracking to resolve some particular issue. I know that I have not answered all questions, and many have not been answered even to my own satisfaction, but hopefully others will point out the inadequacy of my reasoning and where it has failed.

Inconvenient Conclusions

I have read and researched extensively on the subject matter of this study, though by no means exhaustively, and have participated in numerous discussions, both face-to-face and via correspondence. One thing that has struck me is how often a particular issue is resolved at one point in the argument, only to somehow later become un-resolved. Acceptance of a premise and what follows from that, should lead logically to the acceptance of a conclusion. But when this is found to conflict with a person’s worldview, they will often retract what was previously agreed. To illustrate this dilemma, we can use a logic construct called a syllogism, a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion:

If we accept the truth of the major and minor premise, we must accept the truth of the conclusion, yet so often I find that having accepted the truth of the premises, the conclusion itself is rejected. If the conclusion is deemed to be false, then either one or both of the premises must be false, or the syllogism construct itself is invalid. There are numerous types of invalid constructs and I will leave you to research those at your leisure, but my point is that so many discussions on the issues in this book proceed in endless circles, due mainly to what are popularly termed, "inconvenient truths". Little progress can be made in the search for truth, or in the pursuit of a logical argument, if previously accepted propositions are later abandoned when they lead to inconvenient conclusions. It is said that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink - perhaps the horse is not as thirsty as we first imagined.

The God Hypothesis

A very common approach to this subject is one termed "the hypothesis of God", wherein we assume the existence of God and determine whether it can explain the phenomena we experience. This is not an invalid approach: on the contrary, it is entirely logical and is commonly the starting point for scientific research, using a hypothesis as a foundation to conduct experiments. One such study, based on the God hypothesis, has been done by an eminent scientist, Professor E.H. Andrews¹. I think you will find his book a delightful, entertaining, and informative read, as I continue refer to it often. This approach having been done so well by others, I thought that there might be value in providing a foundation for the hypothesis itself.

The Volcano

The intent of this