God vs G.O.D. · The CTMU Club

God vs G.O.D.

Greetings and blessings to all!

Below are four simple arguments which conclude that the Judeo-Christian God and the CTMU G.O.D. are not compatible. I'm looking for help in refuting any of the premises of these arguments along with any potential counterarguments that can be included in a paper on this topic.

I should note, there are differences in how God is perceived from within the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition. Even within the Christian tradition there are numerous theological, doctrinal, and practical differences, but in the sake of trying to be succinct, the comparison here is the Judeo-Christian God as even from within Judaism, that God does have a personal relationship with humans--to the point of even choosing the Israelites as his chosen people. That, plus many stories of his personal interaction with humanity abound in the Christian Old Testament or the Law & The Prophets for the Jews. That being said, for the sake of brevity, the comparison and argument is between the general concept of the Abrahamic, Judeo-Christian God versus the CTMU's G.O.D.

Thank you in advance. The idea is to refute the arguments and prove that the two Gods are one and the same.

Argument from Transcendence

P1. The CTMU's God is inherent in the fabric of the universe and not distinct from it.

P2. The Judeo-Christian God is distinct from the universe and transcends it.

C. Therefore, the CTMU's God and the Judeo-Christian God cannot be the same.

This argument highlights the fundamental difference between the CTMU's conception of God as the embodiment of the universe itself and the Judeo-Christian understanding of God as a transcendent Creator separate from His creation. The two premises are supported by evidence from Langan's writings and the Bible, respectively. The conclusion follows logically from the premises, demonstrating the irreconcilable nature of these two conceptions of God.

Argument from Personal Relationship

P1. The Judeo-Christian God is a personal being who desires a relationship with His creation.

P2. The CTMU's God is not a personal being but a pantheistic or panentheistic entity.

C. Therefore, the CTMU's God and the Judeo-Christian God cannot be the same.

This argument focuses on the personal, relational nature of the Judeo-Christian God, as evidenced in biblical passages that portray God's desire for a relationship with humanity, such as Jeremiah 29:11-13 and John 3:16. In contrast, the CTMU's God is an impersonal, pantheistic or panentheistic entity, lacking the relational qualities central to the Judeo-Christian understanding of God. The conclusion follows logically from the premises, further demonstrating the incompatibility of these two conceptions of God.

Argument from Creation Ex Nihilo

P1. The Judeo-Christian God creates the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing.

P2. The CTMU's God does not create the universe ex nihilo but emerges from a "realm of unbound potential."

C. Therefore, the CTMU's God and the Judeo-Christian God cannot be the same.

This argument highlights the divergent views on the origin of the universe in the CTMU and Judeo-Christian thought. The Bible consistently affirms that God created the universe out of nothing by His own power and will, while the CTMU posits that God emerges from a pre-existing "realm of unbound potential." This fundamental difference in the understanding of God's role in creation further demonstrates the incompatibility of these two conceptions of God.

Argument from Objective Morality

P1. The Judeo-Christian God is the source of objective moral values and duties, grounded in His perfect, holy nature.

P2. The CTMU's God is not the source of objective moral values and duties, as morality in the CTMU is determined by the "teleological ledger" and the maximization of global utility.

C. Therefore, the CTMU's God and the Judeo-Christian God cannot be the same.

This argument addresses the different foundations for morality in the CTMU and Judeo-Christian thought. In the Judeo-Christian understanding, God's perfect, holy nature serves as the basis for objective moral values and duties. In contrast, the CTMU's conception of morality is based on the "teleological ledger" and the maximization of global utility, without reference to God's nature as the source of objective moral standards. This divergence in the understanding of the foundation for morality further underscores the irreconcilable differences between these two conceptions of God.

13 comments