>It could be that god does not exist had you ever considered that in your problem/premise?
Yes, that is premise 1. God's existence is not provable by mathematic formula. The existence of matter proves a creator beyond the matter. The existence of good, love, purpose, etc. within the human experience tell us something about the nature of that creator. We should accept the concept of God that most closely matches reality. Precisely defining the problem we all feel in our souls and then evaluating possible solutions allows us to more accurately comprehend reality. This in turn helps us reject human concepts of God (or non-god) that are false and embrace those that are true.
Once premise 1 is accepted, I submit that it is really not that difficult to make progress quickly in determining the nature of God. We are not in the dark since a God who exists and who encompasses the "good" things we know will have left us plenty of clues to help us out.
Of course, I am broad-brushing issues that have been debated for centuries. However, most people will agree with premise 1. If not, that's OK. We could debate that, but it's beyond the scope of this dialog. If someone doesn't accept premise 1, they can just ignore this. However, folks who deny premise 1 really know that it's true but don't like it. Or they haven't thought about it.
First - God exists. I must humbly submit to His commands.
Second - God is completely holy, good, clean, and pure.
Third - I am not holy and pure because I refuse to perfectly follow His commands. I have separated myself from God.
Fourth - God is just. Justice requires disobedience be punished.
Problem: How can I escape God's punishment, yet justice be preserved?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
