Recreating Objectives

Come on, it's 2021. If you still believe in fairy tails then there is no hope for you.

You have made so many contradictions in your op, and in the first two paragraphs in particular.  It is difficult to know where to start.

Just one example;  you say:

 and then we a right back to god and the concepts of  god:

What happened to forgetting all that baloney?  And which parts  " about religion and concepts about God"   do you consider to be baloney? Or is that part simply directed towards the   " the easily tricked idiots" you mentioned earlier?#39

You will be pleased to know that I'll give it a miss for now.

Honestly I don't see the point of this exercise. Why make things up, how we would prefer it? It's hard enough trying to figure out what's going on in the first place.

Cause and effect leave no room for freewill I would change the unjust part of the law which punishes individuals for actions they have no control over. The goal of any law should not be to level punishment at individuals or groups but to protect those living under said law.

Well stated. Far better than my own reply.

With all the nagging and whining about religious oppression and unfairness you would think a topic like this would be welcome. Rather now you guys just nag and whine about freedom of expression.

And here was my reply to that...

Hope in what sense?  I would say most of the theists here live life the same as the atheists other than the incorporation of some rituals, prayers, spiritual readings  and attending worship. I also don't fish but I don't begrudge people spending money and time on fishing. Especially when they don't keep the fish just put them back. What are you hoping we do so different you have to have come here and talk about it. 

IF I were to accept some god to exist, I suppose there would be certain characteristics I would wish they exhibit

Btw - here is the definition of god I am working off of: "a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshiped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being:"

To consisely answer the question:

And what if this isn't a "cause and effect" universe?

The Law of Cause and Effect says it is. 

I am talking about the hope of being an intelligent person. Let's see what an intelligent person said about God.

 “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” - Albert Einstein, a year before he died

Einstein hating theists doesn't mean much to me. His opinion on that is no different than anyone else.  But thanks for clarifying. 

So they say. I don't believe it. 

It's one of those laws most of us see in action.

I've had too many synchronous events, some that have unfolded over decades, to believe that cause and effect is a real thing.

I see a number of references here to "The Law of Cause and Effect" in this string, as if this is some universal law, of which there are six, seven, twelve, and probably other numbers of "universal laws" according to [??]. Moreover, the originator of "The Law of Cause and Effect" is given as Aristotle, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Karma, among others [I don't think Karma is a person, although it happens to be my daughter's middle name], so its origin is, in effect, of questionable "cause and effect." Further, I find that, depending on the source [Google, for one, and not to forget Wiki] the "law" is stated in as many different words as there are sources. Most do manage to contain "cause" and "effect" in an otherwise babble of definitions. I'm expecting something distinct [as in a specific "cause" - i.e, we need to have one - having a specific "effect" - i.e., a consistently stated law in dependably consistent words. Well, not even the Bible will translate thus to us, so maybe I'm looking to deep in what is really just a puddle, and of about the same worth.

Further, most seem to think that, according to this indistinct "law," some factor is the total cause of everything, and, thus, the "effect" is that our lives are a total, pre-determined course from which we cannot divert, try as we might, and, by such logic, since our free will is not an available option, according to some who have already posted on this string, there is no God.

That is dizzying logic, but, we seem to be a breed saddled with syllogism. I personally disagree. Most syllogisms aren't. Logical, that is, but, since syllogism seems married to logic, perhaps celibacy is the preferred course. But, two heads are better than one [but, curiously, not three or four, or more], so, there's that.

Thus, EtrnlVw's challenge, which most have ignored in favor of mounting the very "baloney" advised to be risen above., such as all the above.

Of all posts, Edge has mounted the most honest effort, able to dismiss his own objection to deity, which he is welcome to embrace, and I won't discourage it though I happen to disagree,  and accept EtrnlVw's launchpad, to offer a real substantial series of suggestions, just as EtrnlVw asked. Bravo, Edge.

I'll post a response by and by. Just had to get this "cause and effect" baloney out of the way. I actually accept the notion, but I disagree with how most approach it, Aristotle, Emerson, and Karma notwithstanding. Some just cannot conceive that God might not always act omnipotently, omnipresently, or omnisciently as many suppose, such as by creating imperfection, including ourselves. Do you use all the power you possess, all the time? No. Neither does God.

I will, some may conclude, throw a wrench in the works. EtrnlVw offered six principles [I purposely avoid “laws” as a description] as a baseline from which to build a SimUniverse of my personal ideal. However, my ‘wrench’ is this: since my conception of God is that the “heaven and earth” he created, although imperfect, was designed and constructed according to Plan, the plan includes growth to perfection. The Plan is that it all – all things he created – are on a course leading to perfection, as God is presently. Therefore, it is the course that is the construct of EtrnlVw’s “principles,” take, and not whatever I might create were I in God’s place as creator.
 
For example, I would key on the 2ndprinciple, “You are an eternal agency,” based on the 1st, that the creation could be as it is, or changed by my agency. In my ideal universe, we would embrace that agency, rather than refute it, because in the “heaven and earth” that is, God advised Adam that “of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.” That was the gift of agency. “Every tree” meant just that; all of them. Adam was not forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, just that there would be dire circumstance for doing so. Adam was left with the choice. In my ideal “heaven and earth,” that choice is universal, i.e., partake of everything, or not, by personal choice, knowing that some choices are better than others, some should be avoided, and some embraced as best choices. For the cause of Adam’s choice, bringing about mortality and death, there must needs be a way of redemption from the hell of permanent death. A savior, a perfect and personal redeemer whose sacrifice would atone for Adam’s choice, so that none following would bear that personal burden, but only the burdens of their own missteps. And that redemption, that atonement, would answer for personal missteps, as well, conditional on their acceptance and gratitude for it. In no wise do the people of my ideal heaven and earth feel deprived of choice, ever. In other words, my heaven and earth are not realms of omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient predestination. 
 
My ideal h&e allows its inhabitants to go to the stars, accepting consequences with responsibility as with any choice. MY h&e is just one of many; other created by other beings of similar responsibility and power to be in any realm, plane, or time, which is, in fact, nonexistent. This is eternity. There is no ultimate cause and effect. Each person is responsible and enabled with personal choices of cause and effect, and all are in harmony so long as no one’s choice infringes upon another’s. In an eternity, there is room for all to have their cake and eat it, too, without causing hunger to anyone else. What I've described is exactly the condition of this h&e we experience now.

Freewill is logically incoherent. 

How would we confirm or deny this proposition? If it is unfalsifiable then it can just be dismissed. 

Nothing can be confirmed nor denied. Especially in your world view. So why bother discussing anything at all?

Now, I would like it if you would just give my question a go, just because.

Why? Because a disjointed cause and effect says so? What makes that coherent? Syllogism? What made syllogism the holy grail? I think free will is a far more direct and logical construct than all that strung out. Or, does someone else decide what you put in your pie hole? Or that your socks match?

Your problem is assuming that cause and effect means that God has predetermined everyone and everything's entire existence, and if you cannot accept that, then God is non-existent. So, what if God is not the total cause of anything rather than everything? TOTAL cause, mind you. There's such a thing as shared cause and effect, or do you accept that we are mindless bots? Nope, not me.

We can only "know" things about the universe through observation which is only useful if the observation is reliably repeatable. This gives us reasonable expectations based on past experience. If cause and effect is an illusion then we cannot "know" things even to this limited degree

Everything you do is guided either by your preference (which you do not choose) or outside forces (which you do not choose) but even if that were not the case every event is either caused (subject to cause and effect/deterministic) or indistinguishable from random (uncaused/almost always without utility/ indeterministic) determinism leaves no room for freewill and randomness leaves no room for freewill. No clever mix of the two propositions magically grants freewill.

Freewill is logically incoherent. 

Whatever you care to put after this is by necessity untrue. I do not think any god(s) have done anything in the observable universe ever. If any god(s) exist they are indistinguishable from fiction based on the available evidence.