There is no evidence there is a god; but GØD is a fact...


Following a lifetime of studying theology I have come to the conclusions that, in my opinion, there is no evidence that there is a person called ‘God’. That is, one who exists as a personal and super-kind of being who lives in some heaven, separate and apart from us.

Keep in mind: I am not saying that the whole idea of there being such a god is impossible; I am simply saying, the atheists are right–there is no concrete evidence that such a God exists in the same way as do people and things.

However, at the same time there is, for me, the self-evident truth that GØD–as goodness, order and design–is all that IS.

Let me repeat: This means that GØD, for me, is total existence–physically, mentally and spiritually–in which we live and move and have our being.



What does God with a slash through the O mean?

In my humble opinion i’m confused about whats fact when it comes to three letter words, maybe 4 letter ones too.

The conceptualization of something is also the limitation and reduction, aswel as the classification of something. But if there is a being that is more than being/not-being, and if it is beyond classified and classless, beyond irreducable and reducable, something more than any human dualization, which so happened to make life on millions of worlds all possable, we do not have to give this force any kind of name.

Belief in the beyond itself, that kind of faith is mind-openning, but it can exist entirely without a religion…

“G stands for the the goodness of the moral order; Ø is the mathematical symbol for the mathematical point at the centre of a circle, the set without numbers, and D stands for the disciplined design of artists.”
See also, unitheism–a word I use as a doublet of panentheism.

As a great believer in personal freedom I believe that each of us is free to use any word with which we are comfortable, but I use the symbol ‘GØD’ for the same reason Orthodox Jews use ‘G-d’ when writing the sacred name. They abhor thinking of G-d as a personal or objective being to whom one can point and say, “There He is.” They think of this as kind of mental idolatry.

About my use of symbol ‘Ø’. Interestingly, I found out after I started using it that it is the mathematical symbol for the “set without numbers”. I presume it symbolizes the infinitely small, the micro, and the infinitely large, the macro.

The root word for the divine name, in Hebrew, is EL. In Arabic, it is AL. Hence EL AL, the name used by the Istraeli airlines. The symbols mean, “to the highest power”. The Greek word, Theos, means, “to the highest idea”. Our English words ‘theory’, ‘theatre’ and ‘the’ are realted. Our word God, refers no doubt to the, “highest good”. When we say, “Goodbye” we are saying, “God be with you.”

As a unitheist, I use ‘GØD’ to refer to the ONE, all-encompassing, all-powerful and good idea–physically, mentally and spiritually–in and through all that is, including you and me.

I agree. I am not a fan of organized religion, per se. However, I take a fancy to disorganized religion–one without dogmatic and fixed position thinking.

Though I am a retired minister of the United Church of Canada, I prefer to think of myself as re-directed. Currently, I am involved, as a volunteer, in starting a new fellowship group of dynamic young thinkers: Markham, Ontario.
PATHWAYS is made up of people who believe in being proactively inclusive. We welcome all kinds: seekers, agnostics, atheists, as well as open-minded evangelicals.
We believe it is possible to live by the Golden Rule, and to agree to disagree, agreeably. :slight_smile: :smiley:

Party-puss :slight_smile: , check my revision. Now tell us: What are you asking?

This is from another post by JP, but I think it’s worth quoting here.

d0rkyd00d, Philosopher:
Being slow of wit, I need an explanation: What is your basic point?
The rant you quote, as offered by Ingersol was
quite interesting. Without resorting to being an atheist, I could make the same kind of comment.

I was emphasizing that design in our universe is an illusion, that there is far more chaos than order, and that goodness is a very loose and subjective term created by mankind. So from my perspective, none of these are very evident, but I know you stated they were only evident to you, which I can’t argue with.

d0rkyd00d, you say that in the universe,

I agree. Then you add,

Again, I agree.
This why I call myself a unitheist (panentheist) and not a monotheist.

Do not get me wrong, I respect sincere monotheism, as I do atheism. In my early years I accepted monotheism, but reluctantly. In its dogmatic form it almost made me an atheist.

The problem with monotheism for me is that it appears that it wants us to accept that, before there was anything, including chaos, there was nothing except A perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving and personal supreme being called God, who started the whole process we call creation and that “He” created it out of nothing. Does this mean that in the beginning God was nothing? Why do we refer to God as a He/Him?

This is what I call a top-down concept of theology. Theists, I will accept that there is such “a” god, when you are able introduce “him” to me. I refuse to accept that I must believe, blindly, and ask no questions. Surely, the ability we have to know and to experience what we call the totality of nature is not for naught. One agnostic friend of mine, who is a brilliant scientist, says, “I believe in all that IS, but why not call it nature?” I said, “I agree, if you will agree to use Nature”.

I am sure my friend would agree with the following quote you give–as would I:“My “faith,” if truly I have any, is in the idea that methodically applied science increases our knowledge of the Universe.” -Phaedrus

How many readers have heard of Process Philosophy and Theology of Alfred North Whitehead?
If not, check out :
It is this kind of philosophy/theology which prevents me from being an atheist.

This kind of “pro-unitheism” helps me accept that I have a choice: That is, I can choose to be a victim of the chaotic circumstances of life, given in to fear and failure, and allow life to be the tragedy it is for many. Or I can choose to accept all circumstances as part of the process of being. Then, in cooperationation with all others who choose the moral, ethical and loving way of living, I am free to experiment and work with life–as do all good artists and scientists–and thus, in cooperation with all loving human beings, work to bring order out of the chaos.

Ernest Hemmingway, in his novel, A Farewell To Arms (1929), had one of his characters say, as he lay dying, “Life is a dirty trick”. The atheist and existentialist, Jean Paul Sarte, wrote, “Life is absurd”.
Yes it is, for those who make the choice to see it this way. But, as one who was raised in tragic circumstances, one who while still young, experienced the death of several close members of the family and community during the drepression and, later, WW 2, I can say that we can choose to see that despite the evil, there is the possibility of goodness, order and design. To this I give the name GØD, not as a being separate and apart from the process, but as one with the very process itself, which I believe is an eternal one. In GØD, we are co-creators of infinity. Wow!

In his great prayer Jesus asked, “that all may be one”. For me, we CAN choose to be one with GØD and choose that GØD be in each one of us. Again, wow!

BTW, atheists, what are your choices?

I accept that life is absurd, but I choose to be happy and positive, and to spread this to others.

I wish you luck on your church, as it is not the normal dogmatic Christian churches I have grown to despise. Beware, just calling it a Christian community will bring with it the negative conotations and stereotypes typical of Chrstian churches. But perhaps directing my Christian friends to your website, will help ween them from their mauvaise foi.

Given the apparent absurdity and choas of life, I´d not put our ability to create order and goodness down to your GØD character (so far as I understand it). I think the miraculous emergence of an organism capable of rationality and empathy is the only thing needed. I agree with what d0rkyd00d said about goodness being subjective. So I think you GØD notion exists only insofar as intelligent beings create it, as opposed to essentially being there waiting for some sort of extra manifestation. While the universe evidently always had potential for goodness, it may also have many other less desirable potentialities which so far have been left dormant (or at least are not present). What of this GØD idea then?

Below, is a poem about unitheism. These words can be sung to the tune, How Great Thou Art. To anyone so inclined: Feel free to make use of these words, as long as you acknowledge the source and let me know. Send me an e-mail, or PM.

Also, feel free to add a verse or two. I am thinking about verses along the following themes: omniscience, omnipresence, the GØD concept as conceived by children and GØD in arts and sciences, hard and soft.

Obviously, for me, GØD is a concept, not a personal being separate and apart from us.
GØD is the power, in every tiny atom;
GØD is the face, in galaxies above.
But best of all, we know that deep within us,
GØD is the source of all creative LOVE.


Then sing of LOVE the highest good of all;
For GØD is LOVE, for GØD is love.
Then sing of LOVE the highest good of all;
For GØD is LOVE, for GØD is LOVE.

Stand not and mourn the passing of this hour;
And do not fear the one about to come.
What’s done is, and we have learned much from it;
Live in the now and half the battle’s won.


Then sing of LOVE the highest good of all;

From this time forth we will proclaim LOVE’s power;
At work, at play and when the day is done.
As time goes by, the power of LOVE redeems us;
And by it’s power we learn to be at one.


Then sing of LOVE the highest good of all;

Rev. Lindsay G. King January 13, 1990

Am i the only one who finds the above disturbing?

I mean… I love love as much as the next guy… but… shudders

So what’s the point of this unitheism? What’s the difference between a unitheist and your standard materialistic athiest?

“A rose by any other name” and all…

disturbing indeed

Tell us more.
MMP, you ask, “So what’s the point of this unitheism?”
To answer your question–which I presume is a sincere one–I need to know: What does the term mean to you?
Have you checked out ?

And you ask, “What’s the difference between a unitheist and your standard materialistic athiest?”
Before I can answer you, I need to know: What, from your point of view, is a "standard materialistic atheist?

BTW, are you a theist? If so, what kind of theist are you?
Keep in mind: I try to avoid judging anyone.

About what?

It reprisents yet another attempt at gaining power through the influence of religion… This perticular brand seems to target those who do not wish their religious views to conflict with other religions’. In light of the many conflicts there have been between religious factions I can see why such a view would become popular.

I have now…

One who does not believe in any “personal” diety or anything other than the matierial world.

I am not a theist… though I would not call myself a materialist either…