Philosophy Debate: Are any of the mainstream religions valid?

Passcode: 2000

We had discussions on whether a Supreme One (God) exists and on describing the attributes of God. Through those discussions the Group and I developed some questions the answers to which may help us better determine whether there is a Supreme One (God) and, if so, what it is like. Those questions are:

10-9 Discussion: What is the best way to define God?- The Ultimate Source of All/Ultimate Ground of Being could be called One/All/Creator/Source
10-16 Discussion: Is sacrifice the only way to atone for things you have done wrong?- No, other religions besides Christianity believe in other things such as meditation, pilgrimage and other spiritual practices where one can mitigate one's so called bad karma.
10-23 Discussion: Can God have a physical existence or should we treat God as beyond the realm of existence?- Many religions believe that God does have a physical existence. A theory we discussed was God as a Mind (or spirit) beginning outside of spacetime creating the universe into which his Order was encoded. An example of a manifestation of this Supreme Mind was given as being mathematics, which exists independent of space time and the rules of which are encoded in physics.
10-30 Discussion: Is there one substance or many? In our day to day reality there appear to be many, which is likely an evolutionary adaptation. Furthermore, there appear to be many religions as it is difficult to reconcile the myriad faiths and actions of them. A Platonic view is the One came into Being, creating two (One and Being) each of which has its own two thereby replicating itself to infinity. So there would be One and many or the One that created the many. Also, the many living things in the world appear as many, but all have consciousness in common.
11-6 Discussion: How can we have freewill with an all powerful God? Freewill and an all powerful (transcendent) God don't seem to coincide, an all powerful God may not allow for freewill and vice versa. But an all powerful God may allow for a type of weak form freewill where within Gods ultimate will humans have freewill. However if Nature is equated with God, humans being a part of Nature can have freewill as they are also part of the all powerful God.
11-15 Discussion: Could God give us free will only to do good? It is undecided whether freewill exists at all, so God restricting freewill in such a manner would not be incomprehensible and could potentially even go unnoticed. But many think freewill only to do good is not freewill at all and that removing the ability to perform morally wrong actions would fundamentally change the nature of what it is like to be alive, while others believe that this loss would be justified. We already have limits on freewill, such as we can not decide we want to jump to the moon, therefore it is uncertain what effect further limits on freewill, those in the moral sense, would have on our experience. But in direct answer to the question, yes, God probably could, if he wanted, give us freewill only to do good, whether that would result in the optimal result is a different question.
11-22 Discussion-Has energy (and matter) existed forever? No because if it had then it would be infinite and we would never have been able to get to the present through an infinite past
1-1 Discussion-Is the beginning of the Universe incomprehensible? The beginning of the universe is partially comprehensible because advancing technology may get us closer and closer and basic reason gives us some foundational understanding. Based on the most probabilistic explanation for the beginning of the universe (big bang) and the 11-22 discussion the universe was created at some instance. You could ask what created the thing that created the universe, but based on the fact that the universe exists, it must be acknowledged that at some point in the chain there is an uncaused/self causing cause.
1-8 Discussion: Is religion just a will to power? No people who follow a religion do not only do it to gain power, but some do, and when they do the results can be devastating. Religion seems to primarily provide people with answers about things such as what happens when I die, what should I do with my life, how should others and myself act? As religions institutionalize, the institution that results seems to strive after power because of the propensity of any institution to act this way in order to self perpetuate.
1-15-26-Do the laws of physics prove or disprove God? If God exists outside of space and time then the laws of physics would not be able to inform us about these things because physics only exists in space-time. But the idea of the cosmological constants that exist and were required in order for the universe to come into existence tend to lend support to the idea of a God (a fine tuner). To counter, there is some speculation that perhaps these constants exist because maybe there was an infinite time (but I really mean outside of space time) in which the void was creating universes that failed etc. and this is the one that took. Also, there is the view that we exist and we have to move forward and question things from here.
1-23 discussion-Is there an objective morality? No consensus on this. An analysis of love was performed and love can result in good or bad because it can cause you to be impartial. There are two schools of thought in developing moral codes, those based on God and those based on Intellect. Both these schools seem to come to the same conclusions, which lends credence to there being an objective morality. It seems easier to judge right and wrong from the outside than from the subjective perspective, along the same lines maybe for there to be a truly objective morality there has to be an observer outside of space-time.
1-29 Discussion: Does the Supreme One care about morality? We think yes, because if the Supreme One did he would have created conditions in which morality could develop i.e. a world with limited resources in which animals are mortal. This scarcity necessitated steady state societies and societal rules(which we equated to morals) to develop. This is a bottom up morality, alternatively the morals come from the Supreme One himself, we didn't have a preference.
2-6-26 Discussion: Is the Supreme One's existence and non-existence mutually exclusive? Religious experience can be strange in that believers and nonbelievers can interpret the same thing in different ways. For something to exist it must exist in space-time, which God may not, therefore, it literally may not exist but can act within space time. God would likely be above the laws of logic, so could cause a contradiction if he likes. On the other hand saying God is above the laws of logic causes logic itself to loose value and you can say anything you like and intuitively it seems something either is or is not.
Are any of the mainstream religions valid?
Could all religions be True?
What is the best religion for living a good life?
Does everyone want to do the right thing?
Does a belief in a Supreme Being improve or harm our life?

Well try to go through all of these in order , this weeks subject is:

Are any of the mainstream religions valid?

Overall, In this series we discuss great questions of philosophy. You could call what we are doing debate style or open forum, but participants are free to give their ideas and challenge others while discussing the topic of the week. Each week I will choose from one of hundreds of topics such as: are humans innately good or evil, what makes us human, did you exist before you were born, and does god (a supreme mind) exist. I think a Socratic method/critical analysis of questions where each assumption held on a particular topic is questioned to dig deeper is a good way to make progress.

The Zoom link will be posted shortly before the event. I have installed a timer in Zoom, so a timer will start automatically when you start speaking, I am setting a 3 minute time limit on each speaker. Once a speaker talks anyone can follow up with a counter point, question, or continuing thought along the same line of thought (leave such comments to 1 minute). But do not begin a new train of thought unless you raise your hand. I will set a 5 minute timer for all follow up to an original speaker.