Does God need to be worshipped?

Smoke_Eater: consider it erased.

[ March 04, 2002, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: poikilotherm ]

 

Can we get back to chekmate's questions for a moment?

Surely it won't surprise you if I point out that you're not the first to feel that way. I've already stated that God doesn't need anything, including our worship. So you ask, why do I feel the need to worship Him. Let me try to answer.

1. God's Infinite Perfection- As I believe in God, I believe that He is the only Perfect Being.

2. God's all-knowing- We call it omniscience. He's perfect in His wisdom and knowledge.

3. Since He's perfect and all-knowing, then wouldn't common sense dictate that He would know that He is perfect. This isn't arrogance. It would be in me, if I "knew that I was perfect" because I'm not. But He is, and for Him to know that is not ego.

4. Since He knows that He's perfect, why would He command worship from His creatures except to prevent them from worshipping something less perfect than Himself. We tend to worship what satisfies us. God says "Worship Me" because He know that nothing else can satisfy like He can.

5. It should be simple to understand. But we just get wrapped up in our desires (worship) of lesser things, don't we.

God said "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Those were not the words of an ego-maniac, those were the beckoning of a loving father to draw his children to Himself and keep them from setting their affections on things that could never satisfy and would only bring death.

It's only that we worship ourselves that we cannot love a God this loving. Who would allow sinful man to worship Him.

 

Yes, once I believed in God because from the time of my birth I was indoctrinated to believe in such things. So, with the innocent and impressionable mind of a child I believed what my parents and society taught me. They also taught me things like blacks are all lazy and that the Nazi’s had it right (even though my grandfather was a prisoner in Dachau and Auschwitz), and that all homosexuals are pedophiles and only Catholics and whites are “truly” good people. And for a time, I believed that too. Thankfully, in the growth of the human brain there comes a point where one is able to think independently and when that time came I began questioning those things that my parents, society and the Church told me were true. And as I began to question I began finding answers, often times contrary to what I was taught. I tested those findings in every situation I could imagine, attempting to disprove those things so I could, once again be in line with my family, Church and community. I got out of my comfort zone, where everyone thought and believed as I did and challenged those long held beliefs and they crumbled. It’s too easy to believe one is right when there has been little or no attempt to put those ideas through a rigorous testing. After years of attempting and searching I could not believe as they told me and found myself on a different path.

The realms of possibility are practically limitless, but in order that I believe in your particular version of a God I would first have to loose my ability to think independently or find empirical and unbiased evidence that was indisputable for the existence of your version of God. I certainly hope one day that I find such evidence, but until then I will base my conclusions about the evidence at hand , fully accepting the fact that I don’t yet know ALL that there is to know, leaving the possibility for change open, to not be lead by others in my manner of thinking and believing but using the best light of reason to evaluate all things, thereby doing my best to honor the moral ground I have set for myself as a human being.

“I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal to reason and is in conflict with morality.” Mahatma Gandhi.

Brighid

 

God without an O is no blasphemous. First of God is not a name, nor is it the actual name of the JC God – it is a title similar to that of Judge, Your Honor, or Queen. Jews often write God as G-d because of the strict rules against writing or speaking the names of god and is sort of a precaution of every falling into sin with this mitzvah/commandment. So, considering G-d, not Jesus started off as the Jewish deity and gave different laws to Jews and Gentiles, it is not blasphemous for a Jew or a Gentile to be respectful of this edict.

Brighid

 

poik -

"Give me one piece of empirical unbiased proof to demonstrate that you are not a figment of my imagination, and I'll beleive you are real. In the meantime, you are clearly an hallucination"

Ah - now YOU finally understand!!

Brighid

Also, let's not use any logical fallacies here - no argumentum ad ignorantum or shifting the burden of proof -

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

Example - ""OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"

Taken from the Logic and Fallacies section of Infidels.org

 

I agree! You have made the assertion you exist. Prove it. Use empirical non-subjective means. Until other wise, I don't believe you. I say you don't exist.

 

It varies with the environment

 

Invalid argument (Non Sequitur):
Premises
1. Parents, society, and church taught me X, Y, Z
2. Parents, society, and church were wrong about x, and Y
Conclusion
3. Parents, society, and church must be wrong about Z

X= Nazi are right, Y=Homosexuals are Pedophiles. Z=God exists

Invalid argument again, (Non Sequitur)
1. Anything is possible.
2. I must have proof God exists before I believe.
3. I don't have proof God exists.
4. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

The correct conclusion from your premises could only be:
4. God could exist, yet I will not believe it until I have proof.

Morality is a relative term. Appeal to reason is defined by "whom" you are speaking to about doctrine, not a religion, its beliefs and doctrine in and of themselves. Therefore, Gandhi's quote is extremely limited in any practical use for religious debate.

 

The correct conclusion from your premises could only be:
4. God could exist, yet I will not believe it until I have proof.

Correct. Please provide the proof!

Brighid

 

Poik – I have made no ascertation that I exist. If I have made one, would you kindly post verbatim where I made a statement or an argument for my ACTUAL existence. Or are you simply replying to one of your personal hallucinations?

Brighid

 

Poik - Is it a non sequitur to come to the conclusion that if my parents, society and Church were wrong on these issues (and others) that they could also be wrong on others, therefore I should investigate other claims and come to my own conclusions? Is that an illogical connection? Perhaps I am missing something here? I think it is a non sequitur to believe something simply because one is told it is true and then to adhere to that belief even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Brighid

 

Oh yes. I think I hallucinate quite vividly. How would you demonstrate to me (say you wanted to)using objective empirical proof, that I hallucinate? One problem with the "burden of proof" argument is that a statement can almost always be phrased in either a positive or a negative way.

That aside, there is a class of questions that are not susceptible to empirical demonstration. Notions like the validity or invalidity of solipsism is one. The common notion of G-d (an omnipotent eternal omniscient being) is such that the notion of empirical evidence is irrelevant, as no available evidence can descriminate between His existance and non-existance. If He exists, then He is the framework for all existance.

I submit that some questions of doctrine can be easily weighed with empirical evidence. Questions of atheism vs theism cannot.

 

Can you be a bit more clear? I'm not sure what point of mine you are addressing. In general, I'd say a critical approach is very important, provided you you are critical of everything. I'm not sure where I might have advocated otherwise.

 

Invalid argument (Non Sequitur):
Premises
1. Parents, society, and church taught me X, Y, Z
2. Parents, society, and church were wrong about x, and Y
Conclusion
3. Parents, society, and church must be wrong about Z

X= Nazi are right, Y=Homosexuals are Pedophiles. Z=God exists

-----------------------------------------------

I have changed this to read as follows -

Premises
1. Parents, society, and church taught me X, Y, Z
2. Parents, society, and church were wrong about x, and Y
Conclusion
3. P, S and C were wrong about X and Y and COULD be wrong about Z

X= Nazi are right, Y=Homosexuals are Pedophiles. Z=God exists

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that they could also be wrong about other ideas as well (not exclusive to the existence of a God, or their God in particular, but other things as well) and it would be logical, prudent and reasonable to be skeptical and investigate all claims maid by P, S, and C to determine the truth or falsehood of all claims – A thru Z!

I use the same skepticism with all institutions, especially ones that have made false claims in the past and I think this a healthy way to approach all subjects, but particularly something as important as the potential existence of an omnimax deity.

Atheism can be defined as weak, moderate or strong. A weak atheist tends to believe in the possibility that a god or gods can exist, not unlike the agnostic, but that the current versions of said being are not accurate. Whereas the strong atheist may disbelieve in the existence of any god(s) whatsoever until the point credible and verifiable (falsifiable) evidence is presented to the contrary – or may disbelieve in the possibility all together. My experience, even with the strongest atheists is that they leave open the possibility in something that can be defined as god existing, but as in all things they demand a standard of proof that is “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” The atheist generally believes that the evidence presented thus far for the existence of the JC God is lacking in credibility for a number of reasons – too numerous to discuss in this particular post. If you are interested in such discussions then I can recommend some sites to go to!

Brighid

 

Ah, I see. You were not addressing my posts. You misnamed post-it. No problem. As I said above, I think critical appraisal of just about everything is extremely important. . That being said, I'm well familiar with the atheist arguments contra the existence of G-d. Many, in fact most, though not all, seem to me to be rhetorical, because they evade the central issue: how do you come up with "empirical" evidence for or against an omnipotent eternal and omniscient being? What does it say to you that many atheists demand "evidence" for an entity for which everything is evidence? Like I say: be critical, but be critical of everything. Merely saying:"Oh, I'd believe, but first you have to show me proof, or (my favorite) "evidence!" is quite meaningless.

I do like you phrase "credibility".

Credibility is awfully subjective, no? Doesn't that cut both ways?

 

Sorry - Poik - I see I did misname the poster. Forgive my error. I will attempt to address you questions tomorrow. You present some very good questions and I appreciate your candor.

Brighid

 

Who was all that addressed to, and to what end? The problem with quoting scripture is that its hard to interpret without context. So far you seem to be asserting that you are a Christian capable of typing. Beyond that, I'm having a hard time interpreting your message.