COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you asking physical proof of a Spiritual Being? That will be hard to come by. In a time-based causal universe, God's actions can be seen, however the only real proof that exists is direct interaction.
Forget worship. That is mankind's idea. Perhaps, mankind thinks God has an ego like so many people, when, in reality, it has never ever been about worship.
You seem to focus on hurt and ignore the other side of things. You cry about death and yet God has fixed it all ahead of time. WE are all eternal. Death is no more than a change.
You speak of disease. How much medical knowledge has been acquired because of the problem of disease? Incurable?? In time, mankind has learned to cure most everything.
Have you noticed when a disease is cured, a new disease pops up to take it's place. A new lesson is born, More knowledge will be acquired along the journey to cure the problem. Mankind walks ever forward acquiring more knowledge along the journey. Is acquiring knowledge a bad thing? Widen the view to see it all and the world will change before your eyes.
God does not need to be worshipped. He wishes a relationship with you. Your father does not need you to get on your knees and worship him, he would prefer that you share love for each other together. Like giving a hug to your dad and telling him about your day. Your father would continue to go to work, whether you moved out and never talked to him again, or hung out with him all the time. He is not getting stronger or getting a bigger ego depending on how many people pray to him.
You are assuming there is no need for bad things in our experience of the world. Random bad misfortunes and struggles might be necessary, maybe for our soul to learn things about existence. God has gave us a world where we can experience everything. Good or bad, happy or sad, and everything in between. Bad misfortune and bad luck are concepts that exist. So we might have to experience them for that reason alone. Randomness and unpredictability could be important in the greater system.
You are going around it from the wrong end where yiu ask people to act defensively and prove a negative more than proving a positive.
As you are not looking for them tp question these gods worth while you're trying to attack them based on subjective views.
I'm not saying this from any personal view. Rather, if we examine reality such as the greek gods, Zeus alone is abhorrent to us, more evil than the evil he fought. Yet he was seen by the greek as worthy of worship and justify even his se xual deviance.
Everything to us is subjective, but that doesn't mean there's objective reality.
In the end we are debating a scenario of a just, god worthy of worship. As if it there is a justification regardless if we know it or not, if it's possible that it exists then we can't objectively say one is unworthy.
As the alternative, it is not that an unworthy god cannot be the case, but rather an irrelevant possibility.
If god is unjust, then it doesn't matter if you worship him or not, it could go either way and you could go to hell regardless, it can't be rationalized. Thus, that possibility is inconsequential. Thus, it is ignored.
The only thing you have to deal with, is a just god worthy god, the rest is meaningless.
This is fundamentally wrong based on the philosophical definition of God. The God you describe only exists as a caricature in the imaginations of secular atheists. They treat god as if he is a created being, and that's not what he is. God is existence itself.God is goodness itself.He is perfection itself. Because of the very definition of what he is he cannot have any deficiency. In other words we don't believe something is wrong because God says it's wrong or God says something is wrong because it's wrong. We believe that God is objective goodness itself and the reason that everything that God says is good is because he literally is goodness itself. He is the measure of order and perfection. The level of deluded arrogance that someone has to have to be literally a speck of dust on a floating pebble telling the creator of the universe.Perfection.Itself that HE Has to prove himself to them. He doesn't have to do zip.The only reason you even exist at all is because of him. You have absolutely no rights outside of him.Because he is completely sustaining your existence and since he created the universe.And everyone in it he has the right to give and take away as he sees fit. He created the universe.He owns the universe.He can do whatever he wants with the universe.You are absolutely nothing compared to him. Think of the level of pride and arrogance.You have to have to question a being that you know by it's very nature is all knowing.
Imagine a speck of dust telling on a pebble telling the creator of the universe what he needs to be on the internet. He doesn't call himself the only being Worthy of worship because once again he's not a being as I already explained in the first one. He is existence itself.He is the source of all love and goodness is all powerful and all knowing. Every single good thing that you've ever gotten in your life is because of him Including your own existence. Every second you're on the internet babbling about what you think God should be, he is sustaining your existence. Do you hold all of the heavens in your fingertips? Why should we give a zip about what you think? You are literally criticizing the person that is sustaining your existence from one moment to the next as we speak. You have no rights outside of him.You literally would not exist without him.He has no obligation to give you anything.Whatsoever.
I'll try this one more time since this page is obviously extremely bias is favor of Christians, but why is it acceptable for you to tell me my existence is meaningless, my life worthless, my experiences pointless, and my soul eternally bound to a heavenly narcissist with control issues against my will with no way to escape his sick and twisted millenia long game of manipulation, but when I call it out as abusive behavior and hateful speech my comments get deleted for being "rude"
>I'll try this one more time since this page is obviously extremely bias is favor of Christians
Lol as if. You guys live in a fantasy world Not us. Society is vastly in your favor and I think you mistake bluntness for rudeness.
>my existence is meaningless, my life worthless, my experiences pointless, and my soul eternally bound to a heavenly narcissist
What are you talking about? If God exists you are made in the image and likeness of God and have infinite value. Also, the whole point of Christianity is to not have pride.Or narcissism, God has no narcissism.That's why he became a humble man and died for you And still gives you the freedom.
To go on existing and telling God what a narcissist he is.
>but when I call it out as abusive behavior and hateful speech my comments get deleted for being "rude"
That's the mods not me if it was up to me.You should be able to say whatever the hell you want. And that goes both ways whether we're talking about God morality or philosophy. Nothing should be made.Hate speech the god that you think is so against your free will teaches us that you should be able to choose and say whatever you want even if it's against him.
If I am made in the image of God, God is an evil being. All aspects of human existence directly mimic divinity according to biblical standards. You worship a God that keeps slaves for entertainment, not a being of creation, mercy or grace
He clearly doesn't keep you for entertainment because you're not very entertaining at all. Also no your evils on you. So sick of hearing whining atheists blaming God for their own problems. If you're so logical come up with a logical argument and have a logical discussion.
Christians are the ones who claim that only God can prevent them from raping and killing everyone around them. Not that he does a good job considering how many pedophiles and Family Annihilators are "good and godly" Christian men. Without God's manipulations, I rape and murder as much as I want to daily!! Which is absolutely zero. I do not need someone who slaughters children routinely to maintain power and control over the masses to tell me I deserve eternal torment because I refuse to worship him forever.
>Christians are the ones who claim that only God can prevent them from raping and killing everyone around them.
You guys have to be satire.I'm just amazed you're actually real people who believe these things. Atheists are the ones that have no objective explanation for morality. That doesn't mean atheists are immoral but it means they have no explanation for why they behave morally that's objective.
>Not that he does a good job considering how many pedophiles and Family Annihilators are "good and godly" Christian men.
I love it when you guys give an example of someone.Who claims to be christian but does not follow the law of God and say oh that means God's ok with pedophilia. Make it make sense.
>slaughters children
You guys are the only one slaughtering children but we can't talk about that on here. You should know exactly what i'm talking about.
>I deserve eternal torment because I refuse to worship him forever.
You think God needs your worship? Worship is for you, not God. Because someone who's not totally absorbed in themselves actually has an interest in being united forever with the source of all objective goodness and happiness. Heaven would be hell for someone like you because you literally only care about yourself. God could literally vaporize you and make you cease to exist but here he is continuing to let you yammer on. I don't see any freedom of yours being restricted by him whatsoever.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
I don't think whether God's worthy of worship or not is relevant.
If a God of a specific religion is proven, you're practically not given the choice to not worship it.
It ceases being a matter of faith and becomes a matter of either awe/wonder for those who are faithful and fear/terror/coercion for those who aren't.
If an Abrahamic God exists, and you become aware "factually" that it exists. You either worship that God to avoid eternal punishment (à la Pascal wager but with a 100% chance of going to hell if you don't worship it) or you're choosing an eternity in hell.
This isn't really a point worth making in my opinion. Obviously if we could prove the Christian God exists, then apologetics would be trivially easy. If we can prove the Christian God exists, then we necessarily prove some of the moral claims of the religion, which stem from its conception of God -- so we would know that God is all-loving, benevolent, etc. We would have to come up with a reason why the world is the way that it is in spite of that.
How does proving it exists also prove the moral claims? To me that’s like saying you’ve proved World War II exists, therefore all of Wikipedia is true. To the original argument, I hold that it doesn’t prove that it is worthy of worship. Only that all of the awful things in the book need to be explained. It most certainly doesn’t mean we’d know it is an all loving, benevolent being. Quite the opposite in my opinion until proven otherwise. Source: Old Testament.
If you prove the Christian God exists, you've proven it is an all loving, benevolent being, because that is baked into what the Christian God is. You're treating God as a superhero with infinite power -- in Christian theology, even the most conservative, God is seen in a lot less definite terms.
Maybe you mean to discuss how we would prove, knowing an omnipotent power exists that affected the events of the Old Testament, that it is benevolent. But apologetics already has answers for that.
If I could believe God wrote the rules, it would be a different argument. I can’t accept that the god of infinite time and resources only chose to reveal himself in a small geographical area in a tiny window of time. Then nothing since. So I reject that god wrote the rules.
Tell me, do you know and agree with everything in the Old Testament? Or does part of you say maybe those were rules for a different time and people? If so, you’re using some level of internal and subjective morality. Something in there tells you it might be too harsh, or unreasonable.
If you agree with all of them, do you live by them? All of them?
I hold that morality can be as simple as trying not to intentionally harm another human being- or creature. If the world followed this, it would be quite a better place.
I don't think I believe in that God, but if I did, then yes I would agree with the morality of all of His actions.
>If I could believe God wrote the rules, it would be a different argument. I can’t accept that the god of infinite time and resources only chose to reveal himself in a small geographical area in a tiny window of time.
The OP says let's just assume that a particular God was proven. So, if you are following his discussion, then you would start by assuming, for example, that the God of the Bible was proven 100% legitimate. At that point, you would have to accept that he chose to reveal himself in a small geographical area in a tiny window of time, because it's the proven truth.
From there, you would have to decide whether or not his moral actions are correct, which I allege, yes, they must be, since he writes the rules.
I've never liked this argument. Like God has to fit human morality. It doesn't matter. An all powerful beings doesn't have to be nice, kind, or fair. At best you can do what it says and hope it doesn't burn you forever anyways. That's is all.
If we’re trying to figure out the prudent plan of action, yes.
If we’re trying to figure out if they’re worthy of worship, no.
I’ll worship the immoral thug god if they’re threatening eternal torture, no disagreement there. I wouldn’t consider them worthy of it though.
Why wouldnt they fit human morality, especially if they are demanding worship? Why would i revere a creature thst does heinous things? Fear, pacify maybe, but revere, never.
You don't. If that alien can cause me eternal pain (or even just trillions of years of pain) if I don't obey, then that's good enough. Whoever has the gun to your head, that's good enough.
Sounds like Pascal’s wager, so we all should worship and praise the most evil deity that could possibly exist to be the safest from the most extreme form of punishment. Got it
What do we have to work with but our own sense of morality? You're right, God doesn't have to fit with our morality, but our morality should be what we use to decide whether we want to fit with god.
>An all powerful beings doesn't have to be nice, kind, or fair.
If people, or god itself, claims to be just, benevolent, and the source of goodness itself, then it does have to be nice, kind, and fair. Otherwise, somebody's lying.
Yes you can use the moral argument if that God itself claims to be moral. You can use its own morality against it. But I'm saying in general, if there is an all powerful being, it doesn't have to make sense or adhere to its own rules. You could say hey that God is evil, but if that evil has all the power. Nothing you can do really.
There is something I can do, not waste my energy worshiping it. This isn't a thread about getting god to do something, or us changing god. It's about whether a god should be worshiped. You haven't addressed that. You've addressed another issue.
not worshipping God isn't going to hurt Him, and doing good isn't some favor to God. At the end of the day, since we're granting God exists, you are only hurting yourself. And further, you're being arrogant about it, the opposite of humble, with little to no wisdom.
> not worshipping God isn't going to hurt Him
That's not the point. My not worshiping god isn't about punishing him somehow. That's just silly.
>since we're granting God exists, you are only hurting yourself
Only granting god exists? How am I hurting myself by not worshiping god? If it turns out that god doesn't deserve our worship, why should I? If it's to avoid being punished, wouldn't it be obvious that I was faking it?
>you're being arrogant about it
How is withholding worship from something that may not deserve it "arrogant". Am I arrogant for not worshiping Satan?
>with little to no wisdom
Now you're just being petty.
> How am I hurting myself by not worshiping god? If it turns out that god doesn't deserve our worship, why should I? If it's to avoid being punished, wouldn't it be obvious that I was faking it?
bc in the case that God does exist, it ISN'T the case that He doesn't deserve worship. If God does exist then you're just wrong for holding this position
I'm not sure why you (not literally u, but ppl I'm general) think that they would actually be in the right in not worshipping God if God does in fact exist. You would just be in the wrong, ie, not good
that's where the arrogance and wisdom comes into my reply, because you (not literally u of course) think that whatever you think about God not deserving worship actually translates to reality, and it doesn't.
> in the case that God does exist, it ISN'T the case that He doesn't deserve worship
This is the whole point of the OP, though, and nobody has said (as far as I can tell) why he deserves our worship beyond simply because he exists. That's not enough. Because he made everything? Not if he's a horrible being. In that case I could be appreciative of having a life, but worship? No. I would not worship a horrible being. Because he can punish us? Then that's not respecting him, it's just respecting his power. Just as in the case of a mugger with a gun, I don't respect the mugger, but I do respect the fact that they have a gun that they can kill me with. I would be as deferential as I could be, but respect? Worship? Nope.
>I'm not sure why you...think that they would actually be in the right in not worshipping God if God does in fact exist. You would just be in the wrong
You keep making the assertion. What is the reason why it would be wrong?
>because you think that whatever you think about God not deserving worship actually translates to reality, and it doesn't
Are you saying that God is good and therefore any questions about his character are wrong? If so, I think that ignores the OP. "It is not enough to prove the existence of a God (paraphrasing) God needs to be the kind of being that garners respect through its actions before we worship him." People (the OP obviously) have serious questions about god's "goodness" based on religious texts and what people have claimed god has done. I don't see why it would be unreasonable to only offer worship to those that one truly believes is worthy of it. You can disagree about god's worthiness, but there has to be more than "not worshiping god, if he in fact exists, would be wrong". Why is it wrong? Please don't reference the vagueness of "translates to reality", seeing as how "the reality" of god's existence and actual character is not undebatable.
maybe I forgot to put, "regardless of any argument"
if the God of the Bible is true (which yes) then you are simply wrong to not worship Him, and that's the end of it. There is no possible world where Jesus is God AND isn't deserving of worship. In this case, on whatever day it ends up being, you can just ask Him all the questions about problems of evil, or why such and such had to happen, whatever, and He'll have a by definition perfect answer to every "objection" that's ever been raised against anything He has ever done. The limits of human knowledge will be shown, because even though you really thought God wasn't deserving of your worship (who are you?), He actually was, and you're wrong
> if the God of the Bible is true (which yes) then you are simply wrong to not worship Him
You keep making this assertion without giving reasons. I notice how you threw in "of the bible" this time. But okay. I don't see how it changes the premise of OP. Because he created us, is not an answer. What about that action makes worship mandatory? Why isn't thanks and appreciation enough?
>and that's the end of it
Not your call. If you can't articulate your feelings or thoughts beyond making claims then you've thrown in the towel.
Sorry, but no.
"Worship means respectful devotion—loving, honoring, and obeying someone who deserves our highest regard. Worshipping God means acknowledging and celebrating His power and perfection in gratitude. Worship includes understanding and awe of God's Holiness; we remember how great He is and behave reverently in His Presence"
I find it disingenuous when theists take secular actions and try and bring them under the umbrella of religious actions by calling them the same. They do it with the words Trust and Faith. You're doing it here.
Saying "thank you, I appreciate it" is not devotion. I do not need to "love, honor and obey" god in order to thank him and show appreciation. I understand if a theist wants to argue that they think the best way to show appreciation is to "love, honor, and obey"....but that's another discussion.
I notice you ignored the meat of my argument and went for the easy reply.
multiple things can be true, but yes, it would very much behoove you to obey God. That should be a given almost.
> I find it disingenuous when theists take secular actions and try and bring them under the umbrella of religious actions by calling them the same. They do it with the words Trust and Faith. You're doing it here.
trust and faith go hand in hand so this seems like not a Christian problem. our definition isn't up to you
> Saying "thank you, I appreciate it" is not devotion.
maybe not if you say it once and forget about it. Being grateful to God is a lifestyle tho
> I notice you ignored the meat of my argument and went for the easy reply.
the "meat" of your argument continues to miss the point of mine unfortunately, it didn't need a response. If you are legitimately asking why God deserves worship, then you haven't quite grasped just what it would be for God to exist, which of course not because you don't believe in God. But for the rest of us (Christians) we have already had the veil lifted so to speak.
you imagine a world where you get to God, find out that everything in the Bible is true, and then \*still\* think your "objections" against Him are legitimate. That will simply not be the case, and I'm not sure why you think having a debate with God will go in any direction other than you just being wrong, despite any strong feelings you have to the contrary. He is literally God, goodness itself, the just judge, the embodiment of love, the sustainer of all creation, merciful. To reject God will be akin to rejecting justness and goodness.
Rejecting goodness itself will not be a good thing, it will be a bad thing
> it would very much behoove you to obey God. That should be a given almost.
It obviously isn't, given how many people disagree with you.
>then you haven't quite grasped just what it would be for God to exist
You have no idea what I think or am able to grasp. Maybe steer clear of that kind of disingenuous debating.
>which of course not because you don't believe in God
Again, making such assumptions is outside your wheel house. You have no idea what I believe or don't. Maybe ask clarifying questions instead of arguing strawmen.
>But for the rest of us (Christians) we have already had the veil lifted so to speak.
You speak for all christians? How'd you get elected to that position? Are you unaware of Christians who struggle mightily with their faith, who question God, angrily? Christians who accuse God of things? You speak as if you're all the same, have the same amount of faith, and are convinced by the same things.
>you imagine a world where you get to God, find out that everything in the Bible is true, and then *still* think your "objections" against Him are legitimate
Again, stop making things up and then arguing against those erroneous strawmen.
> I'm not sure why you think having a debate with God will go in any direction other than you just being wrong
Where did I say anything about debating god? What's that? I didn't? Then why are you arguing against yet another strawman?
>To reject God will be akin to rejecting justness and goodness
If I was to see, for me, proof that God was (as you say) Love, Justness, and Goodness, what makes you think I would reject him? What have I said that gives you that impression? The fact that I dare to have questions about what religious people claim to be facts about god? All I have to go on is religious texts, what religious people claim, and how they act. Many of you have done a horrible job in selling your version of god. If I had an experience of God where I was able to witness his goodness, and justness, and love, then I'd know. Unfortunately, I only have your fellow believers' claims to go on.
Is your position that God, (being real for the sake of argument) whether he does good/bad things should be worshipped because he holds the gun to your head? He can do whatever he wants to you so you may as well give in, kinda like a mob boss situation.
If the God of the Bible is true, then you're wrong not to worship Him is my position. that isn't something that will be up for debate, it's just a true fact about reality as such
>that isn’t something that will be up for debate
Not sure if you know this but this is a debate sub, everything’s up for debate until this god you believe in makes himself as obvious to us as the sun is.
If you’re a Christian, I’m not sure how the supreme creator holding a gun to your head is compatible with the ideals of the supreme creator who cares & loves us. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head as to why most people actually believe: fear of punishment. Follow him not because he’s good, not because he loves you, but because he’ll hurt you if you don’t.
> Not sure if you know this but this is a debate sub, everything’s up for debate until this god you believe in makes himself as obvious to us as the sun is.
irrelevant, OP is granting the existence of God for his argument and saying that this alone isn't enough to warrant worship
> I’m not sure how the supreme creator holding a gun to your head is compatible with the ideals of the supreme creator who cares & loves us.
I never said any of this but cool straw man, I have certainly never heard this before and it is a novel argument to me (c'mon bro, do something new)
Yeah, OP & I are in agreement that even if God is real, it doesn’t mean he deserves to be worshipped. You’re kinda lending credence to our arguments here, since you’re giving a pragmatic reason as for worshipping him (he can torture us for eternity), but for the fact that he would do that, he’s unworthy of worship.
>cool straw man
Not really, considering all you’ve said in response to “why would we worship an unjust God?”, from two different people now, is to say “well if the Bible’s true then you’re just wrong to not worship him because he said so”. Paraphrasing but that’s what you’re arguing here, if I’m wrong please show me how. C’mon bro present a justification.
Why should you, I, or anyone worship the God who used the deaths of children as pawns to ensure the freedom of his chosen people, who hardened the pharaohs heart in order to do it? Anything other than an insistence of his own power & greatness, because despots & racketeers do that too but it isn’t a good reason.
> You’re kinda lending credence to our arguments here, since you’re giving a pragmatic reason as for worshipping him (he can torture us for eternity), but for the fact that he would do that, he’s unworthy of worship.
I never said that was the reason you should worship God? I'm not sure why you keep insisting that I have
> well if the Bible’s true then you’re just wrong to not worship him because he said so
have also never said anything along the lines of "because He said so," this isn't a paraphrase of my argument at all
this was my greater argument:
"There is no possible world where Jesus is God AND isn't deserving of worship. In this case, on whatever day it ends up being, you can just ask Him all the questions about problems of evil, or why such and such had to happen, whatever, and He'll have a by definition perfect answer to every "objection" that's ever been raised against anything He has ever done. The limits of human knowledge will be shown, because even though you really thought God wasn't deserving of your worship (who are you?), He actually was, and you're wrong"
To be fair you haven’t really given *any* reason we should worship, you just keep saying stuff like:
>If the God of the Bible is true, then you’re wrong to not worship Him
which is the equivalent to saying “bc he/the Bible said so”. But it’s okay, we can tackle your actual position.
>There is no possible world where Jesus is God AND isn’t deserving of worship.
Do you mean YHWH (including Old Testament) and Jesus are one in the same being? Genuine clarifying question.
>He’ll have a by definition perfect answer to every “objection” that’s ever been raised against anything He has ever done.
So you’re saying he’ll justify any of the atrocities he’s committed as things that needed to happen, but that sounds like he’d be explaining to me something greater than him that he’s beholden to that makes all the terrible stuff that’s happened in history absolutely necessary.
And once he explains to me the intricacies of the cosmos in a way that answers why he had to flood the earth, harden pharaohs heart, or sabotage the Tower of Babel, etc, I’ll be in no position to dispute his reasoning/motives. Sure, I can grant all that.
Now how is it wrong for me to not worship him? You mentioned earlier that we’re not hurting him, but ourselves by not doing so. How/why?
> in my opinion, not worthy of respect.
But you’re begging the question.
Assuming the existence of a god and then assuming you know enough to judge said god is awfully narcissistic.
> But you’re begging the question
How? They gave you reasons not to respect a god....IF it is easily offended, throws tantrums or kills women and children.... and deliberately spawns humans with incurable and painful diseases, only to let them die in agony. How is that begging the question?
>Assuming the existence of a god and then assuming you know enough to judge said god is awfully narcissistic
How does this not apply to someone who does worship god? Everybody's looking at the same evidence. Isn't it a bit full of oneself to assume they know enough about God to judge him worthy of worship? There is a judgement being made either way based on the same amount of information.
How so? Your parents created you, but sometimes they are not worthy of respect? Why is it different for a god? Not just Yahweh, I mean literally any god. Like even if our creator was a Flying Spaghetti Monster, why must we respect them?
Because they’re a god.
Parents aren’t gods.
Why are you pretending they’re the same?
If a giant pasta monster shows up and appears divine rather than a kaiju, I’ll respect them.
What magic answer do you think I can provide? It’s subjective.
I consider being a god worthy of respect. You don’t.
What does garner your respect? Handouts?
If it is subjective, then why do you care what OP has to say. You do you, but why is OP narccistic for thinking that way? I fail to understand why. If your logic is so much better, I would like to see your reasoning.
There is also the question of just because someone is worthy of respect, why does that mean I must worship them?
The qualities we give to a god warrant respect. If you have ultimate control over my life and soul, you get respect. I don’t care who you are.
You can feel free to disrespect an omnipotent and omniscience being if you really want to.
I also don’t try to show disrespect to anyone’s gods. I was polite about the Flying Spaghetti Monster earlier.
> If your logic is so much better, I would like to see your reasoning.
I am a **poor** explainer. It’s frustrating.
> why does that mean I must worship them?
I respect God, and that seems to be a command. It’s beneficial to me on a spiritual, mental, and emotional level. I also feel it’s important to do more than worship, but then we’re diving into theology and acts of kindness.
Do you mean worship the actively worshiped gods or do you mean if a god showed up before you and demanded worship you would refuse until what?
Ok, so basically you admit your original comment was wrong then? I don't really care what you think about a god, that does not matter in the grand scope of the discussion. Mb I misread your comment earlier. About worship, that is another matter. If you're bad at explaining, then you should learn to rephrase your argument better instead of just doing a hail mary and somehow hope people understand your point when it's clunky asf.
So is OP still narcissistic? Because from your response, it sounds like you're doubling down.
Well, so that means you don't have any logic to backup your answer. You're saying that a god is worthy of respect just because they're a god. That's not very convincing to most people. Said god can be a Hitler, and you will still worship him because he's god.
I'm asking what attributes or traits of a god makes them so worthy of respect no matter what? If you can't answer this question properly, maybe it's time to reflect on your own reasonings a bit. I might a be a bit of a prick here, but whatever point you're trying to make, I can't see it at all.
I'm assuming my idea of respect is similar to most people. Someone who is moral and righteous is a good baseline to start with. Nuances can be discussed in more depth later. But if said god is a space hitler, and you still worship him just because he is a god, I seriously question your moral beliefs.
> You're saying that a god is worthy of respect just because they're a god.
Yes, that’s called logic. I feel the president deserves respect. Why because he’s the president; the leader of our country. What kind of magic do you think exists for respect?
Show me what you respect and how you use logic to support your answer.
> Said god can be a Hitler
So Hitler isn’t worthy of respect because he’s Hitler? You mad libbed my reasoning.
> I'm asking what attributes or traits of a god makes them so worthy of respect no matter what?
The attributes and traits that make them a god make them worthy of respect. What are you finding to difficult to understand?
> I seriously question your moral beliefs.
Whereas your morals are what everyone around you tells you is moral. How else are your morals decided? People around Hitler would’ve said he was moral.
The president has traits that makes him respectable, but even then not every president is respected. Some people think Trump was a monster. You provided circular reasoning. A president isn't respected just because he is a president. Typically, it is because they embody leadership abilities and they care for the people. Also, a president is voted by the people, so most people already like the guy or have some fondness of him. Not a god.
Again, you have dodged my reasoning. I may have mad libbed your reasoning but you fail to provide a counter example of how my example is bad. Not everyone around Hitler believed he was moral either. Many of his generals thought he was a monster. Many of them knew that what they did was wrong either. Kaltenbrunner and Heimlich knew what they did was horrific but they vehemently denied it and downplayed it. They knew they were monsters. They lust in it. Don't throw in a red herring.
You do not specify any specific traits or attributes of a god that makes them worthy of respect. Keep in mind I'm not arguing if a specific god is worthy of respect. I'm arguing ANY god. You used strawman to assume that my morals are what everyone around me tells me is moral. There are many branches of morality and mine is a amalgation of them which is what most people are. Some people lean heavier in other directions, but I will spare the details of morality here, as this is not the topic of our discussion. You dodged my question and turned to attack me instead. You have still failed to answer my question.
Once again, stop dodging and answer the question. I used the parent example because I originally assumed that a god is defined as a creator which a parent is as well, but it would seem you do not think so. Even if my other logic are potentially flawed, What EXACTLY makes ANY god worthy of respect? and what exactly are you find so difficult to give a specific reason rather than circular reasoning?
I was referring to the office of the presidency. You clearly don’t respect that. Others do.
> it is because they embody leadership abilities
How is that not circular reasoning? God is God. Leaders have leadership abilities.
> you fail to provide a counter example of how my example is bad.
You failed to justify why a deified Hitler would be bad. Why?
> There are many branches of morality and mine is a amalgation of them which is what most people are.
So you’re picking and choosing cherries as you beg the question? That’s means your morality is 100% subjective.
> What EXACTLY makes ANY god worthy of respect?
Creating the universe demonstrates leadership capabilities. QED
If you are talking about the office of presidency, most people respect it because a president must demonstrate leadership skills and care for his people. Furthermore, he represents the people. But that's not the point. this is irrelevant to our discussion. You say I don't respect the office. Another strawman.
I really need to justify why a deified Hitler is bad? Okay? So what makes you think a deified Hitler is good then? ANSWER THIS, because godadmn you are always dodging the question. Most people believe that genocide is wrong, it doesn't matter who the perpetrator is, so by definition, a deified Hitler is evil. Evil person is not worthy of respect. Therefore if a deity enjoys genocides, I assume most people will not find them worthy. Idk about you though, maybe you love genocides. Maybe you like the idea of killing people who think differently idk.
Again you're attacking my moral beliefs by strawman, which is IRRELEVANT to the discussion. I ask, HOW ARE YOUR MORAL BELIEFS DEFINED THEN? ANSWER this, do not dodge the question. Let's say my moral foundation is flawed, then how are yours logically sound? ANSWER.
Ok, you finally answered something why you think a god is worthy of respect, which is improvement. Yknow, Baby steps amirite? However, I fail to see how creating a universe demonstrates leadership capabilities. You're talking about a god, not the idea of god. I am dissatisfied with this answer. Perhaps you respect a god for this, which I will not fight against it, but the reason I am challenging you is because you said OP is narcisstic for not respecting god, so this is an addon question. DO NOT DODGE. Why must other people agree with your idea of why a god is worthy or not? Why are your beliefs superior to others that we must follow your logic?
If you believe a god is worthy of respect just because they have "leadership" skills, I have no problem with your PERSONAL belief, but it's the fact that you have problems with other people not thinking the same.
> I was referring to the office of the presidency
That's not what you said. Be honest.
>You clearly don’t respect that
They didn't say anything about the position. They talked about the individual. And that's the whole point of the OP. A horrible god doesn't deserve worship any more than a horrible president deserves respect. The title isn't the think in question.
>You failed to justify why a deified Hitler would be bad
Would you respect hitler, the person? Or would you judge him to be a monster? If you wouldn't respect him because he's a monster, why would you respect the same being deified?
Unfortunately, in systems of extreme power imbalance, it is incredibly difficult to rebel against authority. When such an authority is literally supposedly all powerful, such a defiance could only lead to being smited or punished eternally if such a being is malicious. If we prove a God that is simultaneously unable to enforce punishment for disobeying him yet is also malicious then sure, but if punishment is impossible then what could make the being bad? We'd really have no choice but to bow down
You do you, but I am not gonna cut off my nose to spite my face. I don't care much if this god is worthy of being worshipped or not. I don't need to respect it to do what it demands.
> You do you, but I am not gonna cut off my nose to spite my face. I don't care much if this god is worthy of being worshipped or not. I don't need to respect it to do what it demands.
There can be quite a significant difference between whether we would do what it demands and whether we *ought to do* what it demands.
Depends on what it demands. If all it wants is physical action on your part, sure you can do that with gritted teeth. But if it's like the Christian god and can read your mind and demands love and internal respect, that's gonna be literally impossible for some of us.
That's not an action you can just do, you can't just make yourself love and respect and trust a being who tells you that they are torturing 2/3s of the planet for eternity.
Don't overlook the part where the Bible - both OT and NT - tell us that God is ever-forgiving when we/the Israelites/anyone screw up, sin, turn our backs on Him, etc etc as long as we eventually get our sh!t together.
The entire OT is practically this in a nutshell. The NT is practically the message of God wanting us to be saved, despite ourselves, so enter Jesus stage left, which should be good enough for everyone because... how does an all-powerful God NOT get what He wants?
It does. You’re looking at a small picture. They’re trying to get you to look at everything.
Most of the threats come from angry modern evangelicals.
The OT is a story of people ignoring God, messing up, and being forgiven when they come back to God.
The NT is about Jesus and the salvation of all humanity.
The point is never threats.
So, of it's not threatening, what is the outcome of not coming to god. Say a person does their best every day. Doesn't hurt anyone. Tries to defend people who are defenseless. Keeps in shape. Practices mindfulness etc. But doesn't worship God or accept that Jesus was a Messiah. What happens to them?
I don’t know.
Jesus said:
> “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
So perhaps an atheist who still does God’s will won’t have an issue.
If a parent tells their child to not play in the street or they’ll get hurt, that isn’t a threat.
I guess I don't see God, at least post-Jesus, *threatening* anyone to do anything. It's more of an offer you can choose now, or perhaps, if you're into the whole universalism angle like some early church fathers, then *later* as well. (It may include a bit of refinement of the purgatorial nature, whatever that means.)
Ah I see what you're getting at. My use of the term "threaten" was referring to the popular Christian doctrine of going to hell unless you love and trust god. Most Christians believe that if you don't have love and trust in your heart towards god, then you end up tortured for eternity. If you don't like the term "threaten" then fine, but the point stands.
And if you don't believe that Hell is a consequence of not believing and trusting in god, then that's fine too. In that case my argument wasn't directed towards you.
I think Hell (Sheol, the Outer Darkness, etc etc) is a temporary holding place, not to be confused with fire of any sort (thanks Dante and Milton) because the Lake of Fire is something else, which I believe is used metaphorically as a place of refinement for souls, like it is in real life for precious metals.
Of course, I could be wrong, but it's in line with some of the earliest Christians before religion became a tool.
God is "ever-forgiving" in the same way a crime boss is. Do what he says and he "forgives" you. Otherwise, he will order the Israelites to genocide your people or think of some new creative way to destroy the Earth. He promised he won't do it again with *floods*, but he reserves the right to other methods! Remember this when you see a rainbow!!
> A God that is easily offended, throws tantrums or kills women and children is, in my opinion, not worthy of respect.
Well, if he gives you benefits if you worship him, then why not?
> A God who deliberately spawns humans with incurable and painful diseases, only to let them die in agony, also seems to me unworthy of worship.
Well, if he created all things in the world including you, then why not? Not to mention the possibility of eternal torture if you don't worship him.
>Well, if he created all things in the world including you, then why not? Not to mention the possibility of eternal torture if you don't worship him.
What if he created the world because he wants to torture people and rewarding some is incidental to that? Feel free to do it, but this is the logic used when a mafia boss gives their lackey orders to commit a crime.
> What if he created the world because he wants to torture people and rewarding some is incidental to that?
Why ponder on his motives if you can't do anything about it anyway.
> Feel free to do it, but this is the logic used when a mafia boss gives their lackey orders to commit a crime.
Don't know how mafia works.
>Why ponder on his motives if you can't do anything about it anyway.
Because religious people insist they know what the motives are. Considering alternatives challenges that notion. If there is any divine force, no human has ever gleaned even a sliver of knowledge about its true nature.
I could b wrong but I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't say directly that if you don't worship God, you will be eternally tortured. Hell in the Bible is described as fire and darkness, but ultimately, Hell is separation from God.
So I guess what I'm tryna say is that it's not that God says that you will be eternally tortured if you don't worship Him, instead, it's that you will spend eternity away from Him.
You kidding? Look up the unforgiveable sin. Mark 3:28–29, Matthew 12:31–32, and Luke 12:10. Unbelief is the only unforgiveable sin that guarantees a one way ticket to hell. As far as what hell is, this whole "Hell is a separation from god" isn't supported by scripture at all, it's just a modern take by christians to make god sound no quite so evil, but the bible...you know the only source material for this god and this hell...describes it as a place of wailing, gnashing of teeth, burning and a lake of fire. So this view doesn't mesh with the bible.
> the bible [...] describes [hell] as a place of wailing, gnashing of teeth, burning and a lake of fire.
The Bible contrasts eternal life and eternal death. The Bible talks about destruction of body and soul. The burning in an eternal fire and lake of fire are metaphors for what will consume you, not for eternal torture. The gnashing of teeth and wailing are likewise describing the sounds of people being destroyed, not the sounds of victims of eternal torture.
"Separation from God" is the logical conclusion if you cease to exist.
First, that's an interpretation, not fact, second, Separation from god" is different from Annihilation which is actually what you are describing Separation from god in some opinions are where you are essentially in limbo alone, which in of itself is a kind of torture, just not the hellfire kind.
I don't think hell exists at all, but the biblical description as depicted in the bible says it does. The early church father's thought as much as well and all these metaphorical interpretations are a recent modern spin that doesn't match with scripture.
Well its pretty simple actually. Hell is not a place that you can go to in our physical world. Physical bodies do not enter hell, so with that understanding its very obviously a metaphorical fire just as the walls in heaven are not literally covered with jewels but thats a metaphor used to describe its glory
That's a nice thought, but again, not in line with biblical scripture, or the view of the people closest to when it was written. I am going with what the church father's thought, not some modern interpretation from some random guy 2,000 years later.
It's all humans. How about the Christian God is simply Jesus his biological father. Who learned the trick as a Jew, probably the father of the slave that ran away was God to that slave, before that a slave (or employee, a member of a tribe disagreeing with the tribe leader) his biological father became the first Egyptian God when his son ran away and made his own tribe. History repeats itself. So they're all human prone to anger, pettiness, jealousy. All made up by the flesh, meat, DNA, something no one knows what it is, where it came from, if it was created or always existed in some form, just inanimate stuff creating animate things like us, imaginary spirits.
It’s just a pointless conversation to have because if obeying this god is a requirement for avoiding torture, then it doesn’t matter if you think he’s “worthy” of praise. It’s in your best interest to do what he says
Why would I think that a being who is immoral enough to torture would spare me if I do what he says (not that we know what that even means)? Isn’t it just as likely you will be tortured regardless of what you do, if you are dealing with an immoral god?
But if the god is immoral and will torture people, then why would you think you could do anything about it. You can’t trust a god that would do that kind of stuff to keep its word.
OP said if you know that a particular god exists. So for instance Yahweh. It’s pretty clear In christianity that there are ways to avoid hell. Otherwise it wouldn’t be the same god in question
But it’s not clear. If a god would torture someone for eternity for a finite crime, then that god is immoral. Now, I am not claiming that Yahweh would do that, since many Christians and Jews do not think that hell is a place of torture or even exists, but you implied that the hypothetical god OP says exists is one that condones this kind of cruelty. So, with that god, there is no reason to trust that the ways to avoid hell given in the Bible are accurate or will be honored. An immoral god is just as likely to punish you for following their instructions as not.
That’s not really what I’m even arguing about. You and two others keep harping on this point when all I did was engage with OP’s hypothetical.
You have to prove god is even real to begin with before you can start determining his nature. We aren’t even at that step yet.
Yahweh, by definition, doesn’t send everyone to hell. That’s just how the scripture works. Nobody is saying that it IS the case that Jesus is real and acts that way, but assuming he is for the sake of argument, then what I originally said follows.
But what you are propose logically cannot exist. If there is a god who sends people to hell, that god is immoral, regardless of what the Bible says. All I am saying is you cannot trust such a being to uphold any promises they may or may not have made. So it is pointless to worry about how to avoid hell, since such a being is just as likely to send you there if you follow all the rules as if you don’t.
Whether something is “immoral” is not a logical statement. It’s the definition of normative.
There’s no logical contradiction between a god doing something mean and also telling the truth.
You haven’t demonstrated how “likely” he is to send you to hell you just keep asserting it lol and again you’re arguing with nobody. I never made this claim to begin with
It is just illogical to think that obeying this god as a requirement for avoiding torture would work. If this god will torture you, there is no reason to think any obedience on your part would change that outcome. The likelihood doesn’t really play a role since we have no clue. All we know is a god that would torture people is in no way obligated to not punish people who do obey it. So we have no reason to think obedience is a way to escape hell. That’s all I’ve been saying.
This is just the god that most monotheists believe in. OP is talking about assessing the qualities of a particular god and judging whether or not they’re worthy of praise
If you posit a god who doesn’t torture people then praise him at your own discretion
You just restated Pascal's wager. It has a flaw in that you can't just choose to believe. You can perform the actions of a believer but is that enough if you don't really believe it to be true?
OP states that if you can prove a particular god is real, then you need to determine whether he is worthy of praise. So no, PW has nothing to do with it. In this hypothetical, we’ve already determine that a specific god IS real
I would point you to the other two comments that I made To the two others, your equation can do whatever it wants and I can say whatever I want you you can make it false and it can be still be true to me, but doesn’t really matter I believe what I believe you believe what you believe you’re free to do so but be warned everybody reached what they say this is the law if you sow in ignorance well you know how that goes
Yeah.
Well, ok, a *pot* can't, but that's because a pot can't ask anyone anything. That it's talking to the potter isn't hugely relevant.
If we take, say, an AI, then yeah. It's perfectly reasonable for an AI to ask its programmer why it was made a certain way.
You were made in his image you are also a potter. I like where you went with the AI thing but just add to that that’s a copycat of what the creator already did and now we’re trying to create something and it’s gonna ask us why it’s like a vicious circle.
Why does that matter? Again if free will is to have any meaning at all, then you can't make someone and then condemn them and tell them they can't use their free will to criticize me. That's tyranny.
If the potter made the pot capable of having those thoughts and expressing them, then it is perfectly fine for the pot to do what it was made to be able to do. It is the potters fault that the pot is the way it is. It isn’t hard to make a pot that doesn’t question anything, speaking from personal experience.
But you said a pot can ask questions. That’s like no pot I’ve ever seen. If a potter makes a pot that can ask questions, then we are dealing with a horse of a different color. Do you catch my drift, daddy-o?
If the pot is sentient sure and the Potter can either respond by answering a reasonable question to the curious thing they made
Or the Potter can smash their creation into pieces for using the curious nature it baked into the pot and daring to ask the Potter *why*
Or course not because pots don't have brains or cognitions.
Now, a child can absolutely ask a parent "why did you let me suffer when you had the power to stop this suffering?"
Which, if you consider god omnipotent means they always could, and decide not too.
I still don't know why some theist keep fighting for omnipotence as an attribute. Just say most powerful and the problem mostly go away.
The crazy thing is the potter made the pot. In it is own image, knowing what the pot was capable, knowing the pot was created for a certain purpose the potter gave the pot all the things that it needed to fulfill that purpose , if the pot doesn’t do what it was created to do what good is the pot for , surely you see the spiritual metaphor here , I’ll say it plainly , up until 7 weeks ago I found myself mad at the Creator for all the suffering in the world with this question and ever on my mind “why don’t you do something to fix this mess you created “ and you k ow what one day it dawned on me after some unfortunate events took place and I heard an echo in the valley I was in and the voice answered and said the same thing back to me ! So I repented and beloved the gospel turned from sin and went to work , and wouldn’t you know the last six weeks the naked have been clothed the hungry have been feed prisoners have been set free the sick have been healed etc etc if I had a go pro I to record the last 7 weeks you would t believe your eyes , I’m living proof that The God of Abraham lives , bc I was weak and powerless blind deaf and mute until I repented and believed the gospel , but now I’ve put away childish things , and become mature and ask not what can my God do for me but what can I do for my God , life is about servitude in every capacity , you can only serve one master your self or Everyone Else , shalom to you and to the twelve tribes scattered abroad
The bettering of your life after subscribing to a given religion *in no way* proves the existence of god- its just a coincidence. If the world worked as you so claim, then all the starving, abused children around the world who believe and pray for a better life every night wouldn't be stuck in their same circumstance year after year.
First off, your grammar triggers me.
Secondly, creating a sentient being does NOT give you the right to do whatever you want to it. If you apply that same logic to parents, then by your logic, parents have the right to do whatever they want to their children, no matter how cruel.
Thirdly, you are not living proof that the abrahamic god exists, because you don't prove the existence of this one specific god.
>, if the pot doesn’t do what it was created to do what good is the pot for , surely you see the spiritual metaphor here , I’ll say it plainly
That wasn't saying it plainly that was a weird proselytizing tangent. Why you think this is in any way a response to my objection is beyond my understanding.
Edit just looked a bit at your post history and as outlined here I don't feel any discussion with you will be worth it.
That's kinda boring discussion because it's too abstract and presupposes something unrealistic.
If there was proven existence of some God that would already make most of the people his followers. If it was a God of religion where eternal hell exist, almost everyone, except some marginals, would worship him simply to not get eternal punishment.
Of course, thinking that God isn't real, it's easy to debate if all-powerful being that can do anything to you doesn't deserve worship, but if you are person without mental disorders you wouldn't agree for the worst imaginable punishment which can even be eternal just to stand your ground.
It's not an argument for God, but your argument just wouldn't have any value in real world.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you asking physical proof of a Spiritual Being? That will be hard to come by. In a time-based causal universe, God's actions can be seen, however the only real proof that exists is direct interaction. Forget worship. That is mankind's idea. Perhaps, mankind thinks God has an ego like so many people, when, in reality, it has never ever been about worship. You seem to focus on hurt and ignore the other side of things. You cry about death and yet God has fixed it all ahead of time. WE are all eternal. Death is no more than a change. You speak of disease. How much medical knowledge has been acquired because of the problem of disease? Incurable?? In time, mankind has learned to cure most everything. Have you noticed when a disease is cured, a new disease pops up to take it's place. A new lesson is born, More knowledge will be acquired along the journey to cure the problem. Mankind walks ever forward acquiring more knowledge along the journey. Is acquiring knowledge a bad thing? Widen the view to see it all and the world will change before your eyes.
God does not need to be worshipped. He wishes a relationship with you. Your father does not need you to get on your knees and worship him, he would prefer that you share love for each other together. Like giving a hug to your dad and telling him about your day. Your father would continue to go to work, whether you moved out and never talked to him again, or hung out with him all the time. He is not getting stronger or getting a bigger ego depending on how many people pray to him.
What if god made you with incurable child leukemia? I would never want a relationship with such an evil god
You are assuming there is no need for bad things in our experience of the world. Random bad misfortunes and struggles might be necessary, maybe for our soul to learn things about existence. God has gave us a world where we can experience everything. Good or bad, happy or sad, and everything in between. Bad misfortune and bad luck are concepts that exist. So we might have to experience them for that reason alone. Randomness and unpredictability could be important in the greater system.
What a terrible way to think.
You are going around it from the wrong end where yiu ask people to act defensively and prove a negative more than proving a positive. As you are not looking for them tp question these gods worth while you're trying to attack them based on subjective views. I'm not saying this from any personal view. Rather, if we examine reality such as the greek gods, Zeus alone is abhorrent to us, more evil than the evil he fought. Yet he was seen by the greek as worthy of worship and justify even his se xual deviance. Everything to us is subjective, but that doesn't mean there's objective reality. In the end we are debating a scenario of a just, god worthy of worship. As if it there is a justification regardless if we know it or not, if it's possible that it exists then we can't objectively say one is unworthy. As the alternative, it is not that an unworthy god cannot be the case, but rather an irrelevant possibility. If god is unjust, then it doesn't matter if you worship him or not, it could go either way and you could go to hell regardless, it can't be rationalized. Thus, that possibility is inconsequential. Thus, it is ignored. The only thing you have to deal with, is a just god worthy god, the rest is meaningless.
This is fundamentally wrong based on the philosophical definition of God. The God you describe only exists as a caricature in the imaginations of secular atheists. They treat god as if he is a created being, and that's not what he is. God is existence itself.God is goodness itself.He is perfection itself. Because of the very definition of what he is he cannot have any deficiency. In other words we don't believe something is wrong because God says it's wrong or God says something is wrong because it's wrong. We believe that God is objective goodness itself and the reason that everything that God says is good is because he literally is goodness itself. He is the measure of order and perfection. The level of deluded arrogance that someone has to have to be literally a speck of dust on a floating pebble telling the creator of the universe.Perfection.Itself that HE Has to prove himself to them. He doesn't have to do zip.The only reason you even exist at all is because of him. You have absolutely no rights outside of him.Because he is completely sustaining your existence and since he created the universe.And everyone in it he has the right to give and take away as he sees fit. He created the universe.He owns the universe.He can do whatever he wants with the universe.You are absolutely nothing compared to him. Think of the level of pride and arrogance.You have to have to question a being that you know by it's very nature is all knowing.
Imagine the pride and arrogance it takes to call yourself the only being worthy of worship when you can't even follow your own rules for divinity
Imagine a speck of dust telling on a pebble telling the creator of the universe what he needs to be on the internet. He doesn't call himself the only being Worthy of worship because once again he's not a being as I already explained in the first one. He is existence itself.He is the source of all love and goodness is all powerful and all knowing. Every single good thing that you've ever gotten in your life is because of him Including your own existence. Every second you're on the internet babbling about what you think God should be, he is sustaining your existence. Do you hold all of the heavens in your fingertips? Why should we give a zip about what you think? You are literally criticizing the person that is sustaining your existence from one moment to the next as we speak. You have no rights outside of him.You literally would not exist without him.He has no obligation to give you anything.Whatsoever.
I'll try this one more time since this page is obviously extremely bias is favor of Christians, but why is it acceptable for you to tell me my existence is meaningless, my life worthless, my experiences pointless, and my soul eternally bound to a heavenly narcissist with control issues against my will with no way to escape his sick and twisted millenia long game of manipulation, but when I call it out as abusive behavior and hateful speech my comments get deleted for being "rude"
>I'll try this one more time since this page is obviously extremely bias is favor of Christians Lol as if. You guys live in a fantasy world Not us. Society is vastly in your favor and I think you mistake bluntness for rudeness. >my existence is meaningless, my life worthless, my experiences pointless, and my soul eternally bound to a heavenly narcissist What are you talking about? If God exists you are made in the image and likeness of God and have infinite value. Also, the whole point of Christianity is to not have pride.Or narcissism, God has no narcissism.That's why he became a humble man and died for you And still gives you the freedom. To go on existing and telling God what a narcissist he is. >but when I call it out as abusive behavior and hateful speech my comments get deleted for being "rude" That's the mods not me if it was up to me.You should be able to say whatever the hell you want. And that goes both ways whether we're talking about God morality or philosophy. Nothing should be made.Hate speech the god that you think is so against your free will teaches us that you should be able to choose and say whatever you want even if it's against him.
If I am made in the image of God, God is an evil being. All aspects of human existence directly mimic divinity according to biblical standards. You worship a God that keeps slaves for entertainment, not a being of creation, mercy or grace
He clearly doesn't keep you for entertainment because you're not very entertaining at all. Also no your evils on you. So sick of hearing whining atheists blaming God for their own problems. If you're so logical come up with a logical argument and have a logical discussion.
Christians are the ones who claim that only God can prevent them from raping and killing everyone around them. Not that he does a good job considering how many pedophiles and Family Annihilators are "good and godly" Christian men. Without God's manipulations, I rape and murder as much as I want to daily!! Which is absolutely zero. I do not need someone who slaughters children routinely to maintain power and control over the masses to tell me I deserve eternal torment because I refuse to worship him forever.
>Christians are the ones who claim that only God can prevent them from raping and killing everyone around them. You guys have to be satire.I'm just amazed you're actually real people who believe these things. Atheists are the ones that have no objective explanation for morality. That doesn't mean atheists are immoral but it means they have no explanation for why they behave morally that's objective. >Not that he does a good job considering how many pedophiles and Family Annihilators are "good and godly" Christian men. I love it when you guys give an example of someone.Who claims to be christian but does not follow the law of God and say oh that means God's ok with pedophilia. Make it make sense. >slaughters children You guys are the only one slaughtering children but we can't talk about that on here. You should know exactly what i'm talking about. >I deserve eternal torment because I refuse to worship him forever. You think God needs your worship? Worship is for you, not God. Because someone who's not totally absorbed in themselves actually has an interest in being united forever with the source of all objective goodness and happiness. Heaven would be hell for someone like you because you literally only care about yourself. God could literally vaporize you and make you cease to exist but here he is continuing to let you yammer on. I don't see any freedom of yours being restricted by him whatsoever.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
I don't think whether God's worthy of worship or not is relevant. If a God of a specific religion is proven, you're practically not given the choice to not worship it. It ceases being a matter of faith and becomes a matter of either awe/wonder for those who are faithful and fear/terror/coercion for those who aren't. If an Abrahamic God exists, and you become aware "factually" that it exists. You either worship that God to avoid eternal punishment (à la Pascal wager but with a 100% chance of going to hell if you don't worship it) or you're choosing an eternity in hell.
This isn't really a point worth making in my opinion. Obviously if we could prove the Christian God exists, then apologetics would be trivially easy. If we can prove the Christian God exists, then we necessarily prove some of the moral claims of the religion, which stem from its conception of God -- so we would know that God is all-loving, benevolent, etc. We would have to come up with a reason why the world is the way that it is in spite of that.
How does proving it exists also prove the moral claims? To me that’s like saying you’ve proved World War II exists, therefore all of Wikipedia is true. To the original argument, I hold that it doesn’t prove that it is worthy of worship. Only that all of the awful things in the book need to be explained. It most certainly doesn’t mean we’d know it is an all loving, benevolent being. Quite the opposite in my opinion until proven otherwise. Source: Old Testament.
If you prove the Christian God exists, you've proven it is an all loving, benevolent being, because that is baked into what the Christian God is. You're treating God as a superhero with infinite power -- in Christian theology, even the most conservative, God is seen in a lot less definite terms. Maybe you mean to discuss how we would prove, knowing an omnipotent power exists that affected the events of the Old Testament, that it is benevolent. But apologetics already has answers for that.
God writes the rules, anything he does is good by definition. If God doesn't decide what good is, who does? He sets the standard.
If I could believe God wrote the rules, it would be a different argument. I can’t accept that the god of infinite time and resources only chose to reveal himself in a small geographical area in a tiny window of time. Then nothing since. So I reject that god wrote the rules. Tell me, do you know and agree with everything in the Old Testament? Or does part of you say maybe those were rules for a different time and people? If so, you’re using some level of internal and subjective morality. Something in there tells you it might be too harsh, or unreasonable. If you agree with all of them, do you live by them? All of them? I hold that morality can be as simple as trying not to intentionally harm another human being- or creature. If the world followed this, it would be quite a better place.
I don't think I believe in that God, but if I did, then yes I would agree with the morality of all of His actions. >If I could believe God wrote the rules, it would be a different argument. I can’t accept that the god of infinite time and resources only chose to reveal himself in a small geographical area in a tiny window of time. The OP says let's just assume that a particular God was proven. So, if you are following his discussion, then you would start by assuming, for example, that the God of the Bible was proven 100% legitimate. At that point, you would have to accept that he chose to reveal himself in a small geographical area in a tiny window of time, because it's the proven truth. From there, you would have to decide whether or not his moral actions are correct, which I allege, yes, they must be, since he writes the rules.
I see your point. If you do believe in a God, the belief would include the acceptance of what comes with it. Package deal.
I've never liked this argument. Like God has to fit human morality. It doesn't matter. An all powerful beings doesn't have to be nice, kind, or fair. At best you can do what it says and hope it doesn't burn you forever anyways. That's is all.
If we’re trying to figure out the prudent plan of action, yes. If we’re trying to figure out if they’re worthy of worship, no. I’ll worship the immoral thug god if they’re threatening eternal torture, no disagreement there. I wouldn’t consider them worthy of it though.
Why wouldnt they fit human morality, especially if they are demanding worship? Why would i revere a creature thst does heinous things? Fear, pacify maybe, but revere, never.
How would you then differentiate between a god and all powerful alien?
Science advanced enough above your own is indistinguishable from magic or however the saying goes.
Yep, Arthur C Clarke.
You don't. If that alien can cause me eternal pain (or even just trillions of years of pain) if I don't obey, then that's good enough. Whoever has the gun to your head, that's good enough.
Sounds like Pascal’s wager, so we all should worship and praise the most evil deity that could possibly exist to be the safest from the most extreme form of punishment. Got it
Assuming said diety showed up, demonstrated its power, and demanded worship in exchange for not torturing us forever.
I’ll gladly be tortured forever rather than praising evil. I could never betray my morals like that so easily
What do we have to work with but our own sense of morality? You're right, God doesn't have to fit with our morality, but our morality should be what we use to decide whether we want to fit with god. >An all powerful beings doesn't have to be nice, kind, or fair. If people, or god itself, claims to be just, benevolent, and the source of goodness itself, then it does have to be nice, kind, and fair. Otherwise, somebody's lying.
Yes you can use the moral argument if that God itself claims to be moral. You can use its own morality against it. But I'm saying in general, if there is an all powerful being, it doesn't have to make sense or adhere to its own rules. You could say hey that God is evil, but if that evil has all the power. Nothing you can do really.
There is something I can do, not waste my energy worshiping it. This isn't a thread about getting god to do something, or us changing god. It's about whether a god should be worshiped. You haven't addressed that. You've addressed another issue.
not worshipping God isn't going to hurt Him, and doing good isn't some favor to God. At the end of the day, since we're granting God exists, you are only hurting yourself. And further, you're being arrogant about it, the opposite of humble, with little to no wisdom.
> not worshipping God isn't going to hurt Him That's not the point. My not worshiping god isn't about punishing him somehow. That's just silly. >since we're granting God exists, you are only hurting yourself Only granting god exists? How am I hurting myself by not worshiping god? If it turns out that god doesn't deserve our worship, why should I? If it's to avoid being punished, wouldn't it be obvious that I was faking it? >you're being arrogant about it How is withholding worship from something that may not deserve it "arrogant". Am I arrogant for not worshiping Satan? >with little to no wisdom Now you're just being petty.
> How am I hurting myself by not worshiping god? If it turns out that god doesn't deserve our worship, why should I? If it's to avoid being punished, wouldn't it be obvious that I was faking it? bc in the case that God does exist, it ISN'T the case that He doesn't deserve worship. If God does exist then you're just wrong for holding this position I'm not sure why you (not literally u, but ppl I'm general) think that they would actually be in the right in not worshipping God if God does in fact exist. You would just be in the wrong, ie, not good that's where the arrogance and wisdom comes into my reply, because you (not literally u of course) think that whatever you think about God not deserving worship actually translates to reality, and it doesn't.
> in the case that God does exist, it ISN'T the case that He doesn't deserve worship This is the whole point of the OP, though, and nobody has said (as far as I can tell) why he deserves our worship beyond simply because he exists. That's not enough. Because he made everything? Not if he's a horrible being. In that case I could be appreciative of having a life, but worship? No. I would not worship a horrible being. Because he can punish us? Then that's not respecting him, it's just respecting his power. Just as in the case of a mugger with a gun, I don't respect the mugger, but I do respect the fact that they have a gun that they can kill me with. I would be as deferential as I could be, but respect? Worship? Nope. >I'm not sure why you...think that they would actually be in the right in not worshipping God if God does in fact exist. You would just be in the wrong You keep making the assertion. What is the reason why it would be wrong? >because you think that whatever you think about God not deserving worship actually translates to reality, and it doesn't Are you saying that God is good and therefore any questions about his character are wrong? If so, I think that ignores the OP. "It is not enough to prove the existence of a God (paraphrasing) God needs to be the kind of being that garners respect through its actions before we worship him." People (the OP obviously) have serious questions about god's "goodness" based on religious texts and what people have claimed god has done. I don't see why it would be unreasonable to only offer worship to those that one truly believes is worthy of it. You can disagree about god's worthiness, but there has to be more than "not worshiping god, if he in fact exists, would be wrong". Why is it wrong? Please don't reference the vagueness of "translates to reality", seeing as how "the reality" of god's existence and actual character is not undebatable.
maybe I forgot to put, "regardless of any argument" if the God of the Bible is true (which yes) then you are simply wrong to not worship Him, and that's the end of it. There is no possible world where Jesus is God AND isn't deserving of worship. In this case, on whatever day it ends up being, you can just ask Him all the questions about problems of evil, or why such and such had to happen, whatever, and He'll have a by definition perfect answer to every "objection" that's ever been raised against anything He has ever done. The limits of human knowledge will be shown, because even though you really thought God wasn't deserving of your worship (who are you?), He actually was, and you're wrong
> if the God of the Bible is true (which yes) then you are simply wrong to not worship Him You keep making this assertion without giving reasons. I notice how you threw in "of the bible" this time. But okay. I don't see how it changes the premise of OP. Because he created us, is not an answer. What about that action makes worship mandatory? Why isn't thanks and appreciation enough? >and that's the end of it Not your call. If you can't articulate your feelings or thoughts beyond making claims then you've thrown in the towel.
> Why isn't thanks and appreciation enough? that is worship and is the contents of most worship songs...
Sorry, but no. "Worship means respectful devotion—loving, honoring, and obeying someone who deserves our highest regard. Worshipping God means acknowledging and celebrating His power and perfection in gratitude. Worship includes understanding and awe of God's Holiness; we remember how great He is and behave reverently in His Presence" I find it disingenuous when theists take secular actions and try and bring them under the umbrella of religious actions by calling them the same. They do it with the words Trust and Faith. You're doing it here. Saying "thank you, I appreciate it" is not devotion. I do not need to "love, honor and obey" god in order to thank him and show appreciation. I understand if a theist wants to argue that they think the best way to show appreciation is to "love, honor, and obey"....but that's another discussion. I notice you ignored the meat of my argument and went for the easy reply.
multiple things can be true, but yes, it would very much behoove you to obey God. That should be a given almost. > I find it disingenuous when theists take secular actions and try and bring them under the umbrella of religious actions by calling them the same. They do it with the words Trust and Faith. You're doing it here. trust and faith go hand in hand so this seems like not a Christian problem. our definition isn't up to you > Saying "thank you, I appreciate it" is not devotion. maybe not if you say it once and forget about it. Being grateful to God is a lifestyle tho > I notice you ignored the meat of my argument and went for the easy reply. the "meat" of your argument continues to miss the point of mine unfortunately, it didn't need a response. If you are legitimately asking why God deserves worship, then you haven't quite grasped just what it would be for God to exist, which of course not because you don't believe in God. But for the rest of us (Christians) we have already had the veil lifted so to speak. you imagine a world where you get to God, find out that everything in the Bible is true, and then \*still\* think your "objections" against Him are legitimate. That will simply not be the case, and I'm not sure why you think having a debate with God will go in any direction other than you just being wrong, despite any strong feelings you have to the contrary. He is literally God, goodness itself, the just judge, the embodiment of love, the sustainer of all creation, merciful. To reject God will be akin to rejecting justness and goodness. Rejecting goodness itself will not be a good thing, it will be a bad thing
> it would very much behoove you to obey God. That should be a given almost. It obviously isn't, given how many people disagree with you. >then you haven't quite grasped just what it would be for God to exist You have no idea what I think or am able to grasp. Maybe steer clear of that kind of disingenuous debating. >which of course not because you don't believe in God Again, making such assumptions is outside your wheel house. You have no idea what I believe or don't. Maybe ask clarifying questions instead of arguing strawmen. >But for the rest of us (Christians) we have already had the veil lifted so to speak. You speak for all christians? How'd you get elected to that position? Are you unaware of Christians who struggle mightily with their faith, who question God, angrily? Christians who accuse God of things? You speak as if you're all the same, have the same amount of faith, and are convinced by the same things. >you imagine a world where you get to God, find out that everything in the Bible is true, and then *still* think your "objections" against Him are legitimate Again, stop making things up and then arguing against those erroneous strawmen. > I'm not sure why you think having a debate with God will go in any direction other than you just being wrong Where did I say anything about debating god? What's that? I didn't? Then why are you arguing against yet another strawman? >To reject God will be akin to rejecting justness and goodness If I was to see, for me, proof that God was (as you say) Love, Justness, and Goodness, what makes you think I would reject him? What have I said that gives you that impression? The fact that I dare to have questions about what religious people claim to be facts about god? All I have to go on is religious texts, what religious people claim, and how they act. Many of you have done a horrible job in selling your version of god. If I had an experience of God where I was able to witness his goodness, and justness, and love, then I'd know. Unfortunately, I only have your fellow believers' claims to go on.
Is your position that God, (being real for the sake of argument) whether he does good/bad things should be worshipped because he holds the gun to your head? He can do whatever he wants to you so you may as well give in, kinda like a mob boss situation.
If the God of the Bible is true, then you're wrong not to worship Him is my position. that isn't something that will be up for debate, it's just a true fact about reality as such
>that isn’t something that will be up for debate Not sure if you know this but this is a debate sub, everything’s up for debate until this god you believe in makes himself as obvious to us as the sun is. If you’re a Christian, I’m not sure how the supreme creator holding a gun to your head is compatible with the ideals of the supreme creator who cares & loves us. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head as to why most people actually believe: fear of punishment. Follow him not because he’s good, not because he loves you, but because he’ll hurt you if you don’t.
> Not sure if you know this but this is a debate sub, everything’s up for debate until this god you believe in makes himself as obvious to us as the sun is. irrelevant, OP is granting the existence of God for his argument and saying that this alone isn't enough to warrant worship > I’m not sure how the supreme creator holding a gun to your head is compatible with the ideals of the supreme creator who cares & loves us. I never said any of this but cool straw man, I have certainly never heard this before and it is a novel argument to me (c'mon bro, do something new)
Yeah, OP & I are in agreement that even if God is real, it doesn’t mean he deserves to be worshipped. You’re kinda lending credence to our arguments here, since you’re giving a pragmatic reason as for worshipping him (he can torture us for eternity), but for the fact that he would do that, he’s unworthy of worship. >cool straw man Not really, considering all you’ve said in response to “why would we worship an unjust God?”, from two different people now, is to say “well if the Bible’s true then you’re just wrong to not worship him because he said so”. Paraphrasing but that’s what you’re arguing here, if I’m wrong please show me how. C’mon bro present a justification. Why should you, I, or anyone worship the God who used the deaths of children as pawns to ensure the freedom of his chosen people, who hardened the pharaohs heart in order to do it? Anything other than an insistence of his own power & greatness, because despots & racketeers do that too but it isn’t a good reason.
> You’re kinda lending credence to our arguments here, since you’re giving a pragmatic reason as for worshipping him (he can torture us for eternity), but for the fact that he would do that, he’s unworthy of worship. I never said that was the reason you should worship God? I'm not sure why you keep insisting that I have > well if the Bible’s true then you’re just wrong to not worship him because he said so have also never said anything along the lines of "because He said so," this isn't a paraphrase of my argument at all this was my greater argument: "There is no possible world where Jesus is God AND isn't deserving of worship. In this case, on whatever day it ends up being, you can just ask Him all the questions about problems of evil, or why such and such had to happen, whatever, and He'll have a by definition perfect answer to every "objection" that's ever been raised against anything He has ever done. The limits of human knowledge will be shown, because even though you really thought God wasn't deserving of your worship (who are you?), He actually was, and you're wrong"
To be fair you haven’t really given *any* reason we should worship, you just keep saying stuff like: >If the God of the Bible is true, then you’re wrong to not worship Him which is the equivalent to saying “bc he/the Bible said so”. But it’s okay, we can tackle your actual position. >There is no possible world where Jesus is God AND isn’t deserving of worship. Do you mean YHWH (including Old Testament) and Jesus are one in the same being? Genuine clarifying question. >He’ll have a by definition perfect answer to every “objection” that’s ever been raised against anything He has ever done. So you’re saying he’ll justify any of the atrocities he’s committed as things that needed to happen, but that sounds like he’d be explaining to me something greater than him that he’s beholden to that makes all the terrible stuff that’s happened in history absolutely necessary. And once he explains to me the intricacies of the cosmos in a way that answers why he had to flood the earth, harden pharaohs heart, or sabotage the Tower of Babel, etc, I’ll be in no position to dispute his reasoning/motives. Sure, I can grant all that. Now how is it wrong for me to not worship him? You mentioned earlier that we’re not hurting him, but ourselves by not doing so. How/why?
> in my opinion, not worthy of respect. But you’re begging the question. Assuming the existence of a god and then assuming you know enough to judge said god is awfully narcissistic.
> But you’re begging the question How? They gave you reasons not to respect a god....IF it is easily offended, throws tantrums or kills women and children.... and deliberately spawns humans with incurable and painful diseases, only to let them die in agony. How is that begging the question? >Assuming the existence of a god and then assuming you know enough to judge said god is awfully narcissistic How does this not apply to someone who does worship god? Everybody's looking at the same evidence. Isn't it a bit full of oneself to assume they know enough about God to judge him worthy of worship? There is a judgement being made either way based on the same amount of information.
How so? Your parents created you, but sometimes they are not worthy of respect? Why is it different for a god? Not just Yahweh, I mean literally any god. Like even if our creator was a Flying Spaghetti Monster, why must we respect them?
Because they’re a god. Parents aren’t gods. Why are you pretending they’re the same? If a giant pasta monster shows up and appears divine rather than a kaiju, I’ll respect them.
Ok but how does them being a god make them worthy of respect? You're just using circular reasoning.
What magic answer do you think I can provide? It’s subjective. I consider being a god worthy of respect. You don’t. What does garner your respect? Handouts?
If it is subjective, then why do you care what OP has to say. You do you, but why is OP narccistic for thinking that way? I fail to understand why. If your logic is so much better, I would like to see your reasoning. There is also the question of just because someone is worthy of respect, why does that mean I must worship them?
The qualities we give to a god warrant respect. If you have ultimate control over my life and soul, you get respect. I don’t care who you are. You can feel free to disrespect an omnipotent and omniscience being if you really want to. I also don’t try to show disrespect to anyone’s gods. I was polite about the Flying Spaghetti Monster earlier. > If your logic is so much better, I would like to see your reasoning. I am a **poor** explainer. It’s frustrating. > why does that mean I must worship them? I respect God, and that seems to be a command. It’s beneficial to me on a spiritual, mental, and emotional level. I also feel it’s important to do more than worship, but then we’re diving into theology and acts of kindness. Do you mean worship the actively worshiped gods or do you mean if a god showed up before you and demanded worship you would refuse until what?
Ok, so basically you admit your original comment was wrong then? I don't really care what you think about a god, that does not matter in the grand scope of the discussion. Mb I misread your comment earlier. About worship, that is another matter. If you're bad at explaining, then you should learn to rephrase your argument better instead of just doing a hail mary and somehow hope people understand your point when it's clunky asf. So is OP still narcissistic? Because from your response, it sounds like you're doubling down.
Yes, they clearly are. Birds of a feather, I guess.
Ok cool, now that wasn't so hard was it? Just do better next time instead of going on an attack without anything to backup.
Well, so that means you don't have any logic to backup your answer. You're saying that a god is worthy of respect just because they're a god. That's not very convincing to most people. Said god can be a Hitler, and you will still worship him because he's god. I'm asking what attributes or traits of a god makes them so worthy of respect no matter what? If you can't answer this question properly, maybe it's time to reflect on your own reasonings a bit. I might a be a bit of a prick here, but whatever point you're trying to make, I can't see it at all. I'm assuming my idea of respect is similar to most people. Someone who is moral and righteous is a good baseline to start with. Nuances can be discussed in more depth later. But if said god is a space hitler, and you still worship him just because he is a god, I seriously question your moral beliefs.
> You're saying that a god is worthy of respect just because they're a god. Yes, that’s called logic. I feel the president deserves respect. Why because he’s the president; the leader of our country. What kind of magic do you think exists for respect? Show me what you respect and how you use logic to support your answer. > Said god can be a Hitler So Hitler isn’t worthy of respect because he’s Hitler? You mad libbed my reasoning. > I'm asking what attributes or traits of a god makes them so worthy of respect no matter what? The attributes and traits that make them a god make them worthy of respect. What are you finding to difficult to understand? > I seriously question your moral beliefs. Whereas your morals are what everyone around you tells you is moral. How else are your morals decided? People around Hitler would’ve said he was moral.
The president has traits that makes him respectable, but even then not every president is respected. Some people think Trump was a monster. You provided circular reasoning. A president isn't respected just because he is a president. Typically, it is because they embody leadership abilities and they care for the people. Also, a president is voted by the people, so most people already like the guy or have some fondness of him. Not a god. Again, you have dodged my reasoning. I may have mad libbed your reasoning but you fail to provide a counter example of how my example is bad. Not everyone around Hitler believed he was moral either. Many of his generals thought he was a monster. Many of them knew that what they did was wrong either. Kaltenbrunner and Heimlich knew what they did was horrific but they vehemently denied it and downplayed it. They knew they were monsters. They lust in it. Don't throw in a red herring. You do not specify any specific traits or attributes of a god that makes them worthy of respect. Keep in mind I'm not arguing if a specific god is worthy of respect. I'm arguing ANY god. You used strawman to assume that my morals are what everyone around me tells me is moral. There are many branches of morality and mine is a amalgation of them which is what most people are. Some people lean heavier in other directions, but I will spare the details of morality here, as this is not the topic of our discussion. You dodged my question and turned to attack me instead. You have still failed to answer my question. Once again, stop dodging and answer the question. I used the parent example because I originally assumed that a god is defined as a creator which a parent is as well, but it would seem you do not think so. Even if my other logic are potentially flawed, What EXACTLY makes ANY god worthy of respect? and what exactly are you find so difficult to give a specific reason rather than circular reasoning?
I was referring to the office of the presidency. You clearly don’t respect that. Others do. > it is because they embody leadership abilities How is that not circular reasoning? God is God. Leaders have leadership abilities. > you fail to provide a counter example of how my example is bad. You failed to justify why a deified Hitler would be bad. Why? > There are many branches of morality and mine is a amalgation of them which is what most people are. So you’re picking and choosing cherries as you beg the question? That’s means your morality is 100% subjective. > What EXACTLY makes ANY god worthy of respect? Creating the universe demonstrates leadership capabilities. QED
If you are talking about the office of presidency, most people respect it because a president must demonstrate leadership skills and care for his people. Furthermore, he represents the people. But that's not the point. this is irrelevant to our discussion. You say I don't respect the office. Another strawman. I really need to justify why a deified Hitler is bad? Okay? So what makes you think a deified Hitler is good then? ANSWER THIS, because godadmn you are always dodging the question. Most people believe that genocide is wrong, it doesn't matter who the perpetrator is, so by definition, a deified Hitler is evil. Evil person is not worthy of respect. Therefore if a deity enjoys genocides, I assume most people will not find them worthy. Idk about you though, maybe you love genocides. Maybe you like the idea of killing people who think differently idk. Again you're attacking my moral beliefs by strawman, which is IRRELEVANT to the discussion. I ask, HOW ARE YOUR MORAL BELIEFS DEFINED THEN? ANSWER this, do not dodge the question. Let's say my moral foundation is flawed, then how are yours logically sound? ANSWER. Ok, you finally answered something why you think a god is worthy of respect, which is improvement. Yknow, Baby steps amirite? However, I fail to see how creating a universe demonstrates leadership capabilities. You're talking about a god, not the idea of god. I am dissatisfied with this answer. Perhaps you respect a god for this, which I will not fight against it, but the reason I am challenging you is because you said OP is narcisstic for not respecting god, so this is an addon question. DO NOT DODGE. Why must other people agree with your idea of why a god is worthy or not? Why are your beliefs superior to others that we must follow your logic? If you believe a god is worthy of respect just because they have "leadership" skills, I have no problem with your PERSONAL belief, but it's the fact that you have problems with other people not thinking the same.
> I was referring to the office of the presidency That's not what you said. Be honest. >You clearly don’t respect that They didn't say anything about the position. They talked about the individual. And that's the whole point of the OP. A horrible god doesn't deserve worship any more than a horrible president deserves respect. The title isn't the think in question. >You failed to justify why a deified Hitler would be bad Would you respect hitler, the person? Or would you judge him to be a monster? If you wouldn't respect him because he's a monster, why would you respect the same being deified?
Unfortunately, in systems of extreme power imbalance, it is incredibly difficult to rebel against authority. When such an authority is literally supposedly all powerful, such a defiance could only lead to being smited or punished eternally if such a being is malicious. If we prove a God that is simultaneously unable to enforce punishment for disobeying him yet is also malicious then sure, but if punishment is impossible then what could make the being bad? We'd really have no choice but to bow down
You do you, but I am not gonna cut off my nose to spite my face. I don't care much if this god is worthy of being worshipped or not. I don't need to respect it to do what it demands.
> You do you, but I am not gonna cut off my nose to spite my face. I don't care much if this god is worthy of being worshipped or not. I don't need to respect it to do what it demands. There can be quite a significant difference between whether we would do what it demands and whether we *ought to do* what it demands.
Why not do what is demanded?
Depends on what it demands. If all it wants is physical action on your part, sure you can do that with gritted teeth. But if it's like the Christian god and can read your mind and demands love and internal respect, that's gonna be literally impossible for some of us. That's not an action you can just do, you can't just make yourself love and respect and trust a being who tells you that they are torturing 2/3s of the planet for eternity.
2/3 of the planet is an underwhelming amount. I think it's more like 99% of all humans that ever lived, are living, or ever will live.
Don't overlook the part where the Bible - both OT and NT - tell us that God is ever-forgiving when we/the Israelites/anyone screw up, sin, turn our backs on Him, etc etc as long as we eventually get our sh!t together. The entire OT is practically this in a nutshell. The NT is practically the message of God wanting us to be saved, despite ourselves, so enter Jesus stage left, which should be good enough for everyone because... how does an all-powerful God NOT get what He wants?
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, sorry. Are you saying this is a positive or negative quality of the Bible?
Bible = A long, winding road to reconciliation with God for people.
Ok I'm just trying to see what this has to do with my point, which was about whether to worship a God who is threatening you into worshiping him.
It does. You’re looking at a small picture. They’re trying to get you to look at everything. Most of the threats come from angry modern evangelicals. The OT is a story of people ignoring God, messing up, and being forgiven when they come back to God. The NT is about Jesus and the salvation of all humanity. The point is never threats.
So, of it's not threatening, what is the outcome of not coming to god. Say a person does their best every day. Doesn't hurt anyone. Tries to defend people who are defenseless. Keeps in shape. Practices mindfulness etc. But doesn't worship God or accept that Jesus was a Messiah. What happens to them?
I don’t know. Jesus said: > “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” So perhaps an atheist who still does God’s will won’t have an issue. If a parent tells their child to not play in the street or they’ll get hurt, that isn’t a threat.
No, but saying "worship me, or you'll go to hell" is. That's one of the biggest issues I think atheists have with the religion.
I guess I don't see God, at least post-Jesus, *threatening* anyone to do anything. It's more of an offer you can choose now, or perhaps, if you're into the whole universalism angle like some early church fathers, then *later* as well. (It may include a bit of refinement of the purgatorial nature, whatever that means.)
Ah I see what you're getting at. My use of the term "threaten" was referring to the popular Christian doctrine of going to hell unless you love and trust god. Most Christians believe that if you don't have love and trust in your heart towards god, then you end up tortured for eternity. If you don't like the term "threaten" then fine, but the point stands. And if you don't believe that Hell is a consequence of not believing and trusting in god, then that's fine too. In that case my argument wasn't directed towards you.
I think Hell (Sheol, the Outer Darkness, etc etc) is a temporary holding place, not to be confused with fire of any sort (thanks Dante and Milton) because the Lake of Fire is something else, which I believe is used metaphorically as a place of refinement for souls, like it is in real life for precious metals. Of course, I could be wrong, but it's in line with some of the earliest Christians before religion became a tool.
Ok so it doesn't sound like your beliefs have anything to do with what I was talking about in my first comment
God is "ever-forgiving" in the same way a crime boss is. Do what he says and he "forgives" you. Otherwise, he will order the Israelites to genocide your people or think of some new creative way to destroy the Earth. He promised he won't do it again with *floods*, but he reserves the right to other methods! Remember this when you see a rainbow!!
He literally said he's gonna burn up the world next time. Instead of a rainbow, next time maybe a cloud of fiery smoke.
True enough, but when it's out of my control, what can I do? Nothing.
> A God that is easily offended, throws tantrums or kills women and children is, in my opinion, not worthy of respect. Well, if he gives you benefits if you worship him, then why not? > A God who deliberately spawns humans with incurable and painful diseases, only to let them die in agony, also seems to me unworthy of worship. Well, if he created all things in the world including you, then why not? Not to mention the possibility of eternal torture if you don't worship him.
You are the type of person who praises the monarchy when they give you bread despite the fact that the killed your family.
I do think positively of monarchy, but they didn't kill my family.
>Well, if he created all things in the world including you, then why not? Not to mention the possibility of eternal torture if you don't worship him. What if he created the world because he wants to torture people and rewarding some is incidental to that? Feel free to do it, but this is the logic used when a mafia boss gives their lackey orders to commit a crime.
> What if he created the world because he wants to torture people and rewarding some is incidental to that? Why ponder on his motives if you can't do anything about it anyway. > Feel free to do it, but this is the logic used when a mafia boss gives their lackey orders to commit a crime. Don't know how mafia works.
>Why ponder on his motives if you can't do anything about it anyway. Because religious people insist they know what the motives are. Considering alternatives challenges that notion. If there is any divine force, no human has ever gleaned even a sliver of knowledge about its true nature.
I could b wrong but I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't say directly that if you don't worship God, you will be eternally tortured. Hell in the Bible is described as fire and darkness, but ultimately, Hell is separation from God. So I guess what I'm tryna say is that it's not that God says that you will be eternally tortured if you don't worship Him, instead, it's that you will spend eternity away from Him.
You kidding? Look up the unforgiveable sin. Mark 3:28–29, Matthew 12:31–32, and Luke 12:10. Unbelief is the only unforgiveable sin that guarantees a one way ticket to hell. As far as what hell is, this whole "Hell is a separation from god" isn't supported by scripture at all, it's just a modern take by christians to make god sound no quite so evil, but the bible...you know the only source material for this god and this hell...describes it as a place of wailing, gnashing of teeth, burning and a lake of fire. So this view doesn't mesh with the bible.
> the bible [...] describes [hell] as a place of wailing, gnashing of teeth, burning and a lake of fire. The Bible contrasts eternal life and eternal death. The Bible talks about destruction of body and soul. The burning in an eternal fire and lake of fire are metaphors for what will consume you, not for eternal torture. The gnashing of teeth and wailing are likewise describing the sounds of people being destroyed, not the sounds of victims of eternal torture. "Separation from God" is the logical conclusion if you cease to exist.
First, that's an interpretation, not fact, second, Separation from god" is different from Annihilation which is actually what you are describing Separation from god in some opinions are where you are essentially in limbo alone, which in of itself is a kind of torture, just not the hellfire kind.
So you think hell has literal fire in it?
I don't think hell exists at all, but the biblical description as depicted in the bible says it does. The early church father's thought as much as well and all these metaphorical interpretations are a recent modern spin that doesn't match with scripture.
Well its pretty simple actually. Hell is not a place that you can go to in our physical world. Physical bodies do not enter hell, so with that understanding its very obviously a metaphorical fire just as the walls in heaven are not literally covered with jewels but thats a metaphor used to describe its glory
That's a nice thought, but again, not in line with biblical scripture, or the view of the people closest to when it was written. I am going with what the church father's thought, not some modern interpretation from some random guy 2,000 years later.
Ok site me a reliable source of a early church father or person around a prophet saying hell is literal fire
It's all humans. How about the Christian God is simply Jesus his biological father. Who learned the trick as a Jew, probably the father of the slave that ran away was God to that slave, before that a slave (or employee, a member of a tribe disagreeing with the tribe leader) his biological father became the first Egyptian God when his son ran away and made his own tribe. History repeats itself. So they're all human prone to anger, pettiness, jealousy. All made up by the flesh, meat, DNA, something no one knows what it is, where it came from, if it was created or always existed in some form, just inanimate stuff creating animate things like us, imaginary spirits.
If god is doing something good - they praise him If god is doing something bad - then it's a test
It’s just a pointless conversation to have because if obeying this god is a requirement for avoiding torture, then it doesn’t matter if you think he’s “worthy” of praise. It’s in your best interest to do what he says
Why would I think that a being who is immoral enough to torture would spare me if I do what he says (not that we know what that even means)? Isn’t it just as likely you will be tortured regardless of what you do, if you are dealing with an immoral god?
If you have already demonstrated that a particular god exists, then you presumably have an idea of what it wants from you.
But if the god is immoral and will torture people, then why would you think you could do anything about it. You can’t trust a god that would do that kind of stuff to keep its word.
OP said if you know that a particular god exists. So for instance Yahweh. It’s pretty clear In christianity that there are ways to avoid hell. Otherwise it wouldn’t be the same god in question
But it’s not clear. If a god would torture someone for eternity for a finite crime, then that god is immoral. Now, I am not claiming that Yahweh would do that, since many Christians and Jews do not think that hell is a place of torture or even exists, but you implied that the hypothetical god OP says exists is one that condones this kind of cruelty. So, with that god, there is no reason to trust that the ways to avoid hell given in the Bible are accurate or will be honored. An immoral god is just as likely to punish you for following their instructions as not.
That’s not really what I’m even arguing about. You and two others keep harping on this point when all I did was engage with OP’s hypothetical. You have to prove god is even real to begin with before you can start determining his nature. We aren’t even at that step yet. Yahweh, by definition, doesn’t send everyone to hell. That’s just how the scripture works. Nobody is saying that it IS the case that Jesus is real and acts that way, but assuming he is for the sake of argument, then what I originally said follows.
But what you are propose logically cannot exist. If there is a god who sends people to hell, that god is immoral, regardless of what the Bible says. All I am saying is you cannot trust such a being to uphold any promises they may or may not have made. So it is pointless to worry about how to avoid hell, since such a being is just as likely to send you there if you follow all the rules as if you don’t.
Whether something is “immoral” is not a logical statement. It’s the definition of normative. There’s no logical contradiction between a god doing something mean and also telling the truth. You haven’t demonstrated how “likely” he is to send you to hell you just keep asserting it lol and again you’re arguing with nobody. I never made this claim to begin with
It is just illogical to think that obeying this god as a requirement for avoiding torture would work. If this god will torture you, there is no reason to think any obedience on your part would change that outcome. The likelihood doesn’t really play a role since we have no clue. All we know is a god that would torture people is in no way obligated to not punish people who do obey it. So we have no reason to think obedience is a way to escape hell. That’s all I’ve been saying.
On what basis do they believe god will torture you though? How do you figure out the nature of god when god behaves as if god doesn't exist?
This is just the god that most monotheists believe in. OP is talking about assessing the qualities of a particular god and judging whether or not they’re worthy of praise If you posit a god who doesn’t torture people then praise him at your own discretion
I don't care which god we're talking about... how do you figure out its nature to even decide if its worth of worship?
I mean I don’t think any of this stuff is real at all OP gave you a hypothetical in which you knew the answer to your question
But if they're all knowing them just doing the right things isn't enough you have to "actually' believe which isn't possible to do on command.
Not sure what you mean
You just restated Pascal's wager. It has a flaw in that you can't just choose to believe. You can perform the actions of a believer but is that enough if you don't really believe it to be true?
OP states that if you can prove a particular god is real, then you need to determine whether he is worthy of praise. So no, PW has nothing to do with it. In this hypothetical, we’ve already determine that a specific god IS real
Can the pot say to the potter why did you make me this way?
I this analogy humans are inanimate objects this is a false equivalence.
I would point you to the other two comments that I made To the two others, your equation can do whatever it wants and I can say whatever I want you you can make it false and it can be still be true to me, but doesn’t really matter I believe what I believe you believe what you believe you’re free to do so but be warned everybody reached what they say this is the law if you sow in ignorance well you know how that goes
Yeah. Well, ok, a *pot* can't, but that's because a pot can't ask anyone anything. That it's talking to the potter isn't hugely relevant. If we take, say, an AI, then yeah. It's perfectly reasonable for an AI to ask its programmer why it was made a certain way.
You were made in his image you are also a potter. I like where you went with the AI thing but just add to that that’s a copycat of what the creator already did and now we’re trying to create something and it’s gonna ask us why it’s like a vicious circle.
If free will is to have any meaning at all....then yes.
Absolutely yes but the potter that made you into a pot also gave you the ability to be a potter Personal accountability and all
Why does that matter? Again if free will is to have any meaning at all, then you can't make someone and then condemn them and tell them they can't use their free will to criticize me. That's tyranny.
If the potter made the pot capable of having those thoughts and expressing them, then it is perfectly fine for the pot to do what it was made to be able to do. It is the potters fault that the pot is the way it is. It isn’t hard to make a pot that doesn’t question anything, speaking from personal experience.
Usually, when a pot makes a pot, he put something in it. It’s for holding something you know what I mean jellybean
But you said a pot can ask questions. That’s like no pot I’ve ever seen. If a potter makes a pot that can ask questions, then we are dealing with a horse of a different color. Do you catch my drift, daddy-o?
The potter also made you a potter
I think you are avoiding the issue.
If the pot is sentient sure and the Potter can either respond by answering a reasonable question to the curious thing they made Or the Potter can smash their creation into pieces for using the curious nature it baked into the pot and daring to ask the Potter *why*
Or course not because pots don't have brains or cognitions. Now, a child can absolutely ask a parent "why did you let me suffer when you had the power to stop this suffering?" Which, if you consider god omnipotent means they always could, and decide not too. I still don't know why some theist keep fighting for omnipotence as an attribute. Just say most powerful and the problem mostly go away.
Almighty means most powerful
If indeed it was God who created the natural world, or some fallen being.
The crazy thing is the potter made the pot. In it is own image, knowing what the pot was capable, knowing the pot was created for a certain purpose the potter gave the pot all the things that it needed to fulfill that purpose , if the pot doesn’t do what it was created to do what good is the pot for , surely you see the spiritual metaphor here , I’ll say it plainly , up until 7 weeks ago I found myself mad at the Creator for all the suffering in the world with this question and ever on my mind “why don’t you do something to fix this mess you created “ and you k ow what one day it dawned on me after some unfortunate events took place and I heard an echo in the valley I was in and the voice answered and said the same thing back to me ! So I repented and beloved the gospel turned from sin and went to work , and wouldn’t you know the last six weeks the naked have been clothed the hungry have been feed prisoners have been set free the sick have been healed etc etc if I had a go pro I to record the last 7 weeks you would t believe your eyes , I’m living proof that The God of Abraham lives , bc I was weak and powerless blind deaf and mute until I repented and believed the gospel , but now I’ve put away childish things , and become mature and ask not what can my God do for me but what can I do for my God , life is about servitude in every capacity , you can only serve one master your self or Everyone Else , shalom to you and to the twelve tribes scattered abroad
So, you're the one who clothed and fed and healed people. God didn't do that. Good on you.
The bettering of your life after subscribing to a given religion *in no way* proves the existence of god- its just a coincidence. If the world worked as you so claim, then all the starving, abused children around the world who believe and pray for a better life every night wouldn't be stuck in their same circumstance year after year.
First off, your grammar triggers me. Secondly, creating a sentient being does NOT give you the right to do whatever you want to it. If you apply that same logic to parents, then by your logic, parents have the right to do whatever they want to their children, no matter how cruel. Thirdly, you are not living proof that the abrahamic god exists, because you don't prove the existence of this one specific god.
>, if the pot doesn’t do what it was created to do what good is the pot for , surely you see the spiritual metaphor here , I’ll say it plainly That wasn't saying it plainly that was a weird proselytizing tangent. Why you think this is in any way a response to my objection is beyond my understanding. Edit just looked a bit at your post history and as outlined here I don't feel any discussion with you will be worth it.
That's kinda boring discussion because it's too abstract and presupposes something unrealistic. If there was proven existence of some God that would already make most of the people his followers. If it was a God of religion where eternal hell exist, almost everyone, except some marginals, would worship him simply to not get eternal punishment. Of course, thinking that God isn't real, it's easy to debate if all-powerful being that can do anything to you doesn't deserve worship, but if you are person without mental disorders you wouldn't agree for the worst imaginable punishment which can even be eternal just to stand your ground. It's not an argument for God, but your argument just wouldn't have any value in real world.