A Civil Religious Debate

A God who is wise in the sense of God-level wisdom would be wise enough to know what were the personal limitations which each and every person strove to overcome in life, what were their reasons for adopting and adhering to whatever belief system, and were those reasons defensible given their specific circumstances. Such an enquiry would be beyond mere human evaluators, and would require the fallback to deontological shortcuts, propositions of unbending systems of rules the violation of which reflexively resulted in an assigned punishment. The premise that justice requires bureaucratic slavishness to a small and certain set of rules, with a small and certain set of exceptions, is a product of limitedness. For an unlimited being -- or even one whose limitations still allow it sufficient capacity to consider every facet which might reasonably influence a determination of a 'just' outcome, the enquiry as to what is just becomes one with the enquiry as to what is merciful. Every possible basis for bestowal of mercy becomes known and apparent.

Verily, the problem of whether a Creator (which may be inherently worthy of being called 'God') exists has become too tied up in specific theological formulations importing characteristics unnecessary to explain anything about such a Creator. But if 'God' is defined by characteristics including 'goodness' and 'active intervention' then this disqualifies the concept of 'God.'

Better for debates, not necessarily so for discussions, but we shall see....