Theli

Intensity:
one of which is that He's all-knowing
And how do we get to know that He's all-knowing?

seebs:
Well, if you start with one of the faiths, it's generally one of the axioms. I don't know how you'd prove it.

I find this very strange.
If you believe in an omniscient/omnipotent god, do you have faith in (A.) god's omniscience/omnipotence or (B.) the obervation made by a human that god is all-knowing/all-powerfull?

A. If you have faith in god's omnipotence, regardless of any observations, then you admit that the attribute "omnipotence" is invented by yourself, and has no link to reality. Since omniscience/omnipotence is not required (even by god).
B. How can one from a brief observation of a being reach the conclution that, that being is allknowing? In order to do so, you must practicly ask every question that could possibly exist. And for you to verify the answers given to you, you must be omniscient yourself.

I don't see how this works.

And another thing, regarding hell. What posssible use does hell have? Grilling mashmallows?
And yet another thing, why do some people think that god created man in his image, when man is merely a stage in evolution? There's nothing that shows that evolution should somehow stop at humans (as if we were the finished result of evolution).

WJ

Intensity,

I'm not an expert theist, but I'll have a go at it, your's are in ():


(If God created us, on what basis should we worship him? If we could create intelligent Robots, should we expect them to worship us? In case God tells us explicitly to worship him, why should we go ahead and do as he tells us to do? )

Respect/fear, for the God 'that created us.' Similar to parent/child relationships.

No, free-will.

In the case of Christianity, that is the 'means ' by which 'goals' are achieved, whether they are in this life or the life hereafter. [ I'm assuming worship suggests prayer, meditation, devotion, communication, revelation, fellowship and so on.]

(If God created us and told us how to live, why should we treat what he says as more "correct" that what we say/ think? Does it follow that just because you have created some being, only you knows what is best for it? On what basis? )

Because pragmatically it seems to work.

Yes.

Consciousness. Otherwise, does the designer of a car ( Engineer, etc..) know what is best for the car? And if so, does he/she have exclusive knowledge about what is considered as 'best'?

(Why should we expect God to "love" its creation? Isn't it a form of anthropomorphism? For example, if cows could express themselves as us, they could expect their "God" also to mow have a tail etc. On what basis do we assume that the has human qualities and emotions? )

I'm not sure I understand that one but I would say that it follows that Love is just as illogical as that which you are describing as somewhat of an analogy. So, in other words, anything is possible unless of course we can fully comprehend the mind of God.

(And if indeed he has those human qualities and emotions (anger, love, benevolence paternalism etc) isnt he then, just a powerful "man"? And if that is the case, why then should we worship him?)

Why do people idolize their heros? Is there a difference?

(Why did God create us ? If what he wanted was someone to "fellowship" with and know him (as some claim), why did he create a being inferior to him? If you were omnipotent and needed a relationship with another being, would you create beings that are lesser (read inferior) than you or beings that equal you in terms of omniscience and omnipotence? )

Someone said in another thread that the game of life is much like a chessmatch. Besides, if you could create a computer robot with a fully human conscious, free-will, sentience and all the rest, wouldn't they too become omnipotent? In other words, mystery would not have a reason to exist.

(In the same vein, if you wanted beings to worship you and fear you, would you create inferior beings or beings that match you in terms of omniscience and omnipotence? )

Agreed, I suppose you would create them 'inferior' intentionally. Perhaps the best anology then here is, 'planned obsolescience'.

(If God wanted true love (one not based on indebtness, fear or expectation of rewards) why couldn't he have created beings that equal him in omniscience then ask them to love and worship him? Would such beings pose a challenge to him? If not, why would he create inferior beings like ourselves (who cannot even perceive him or treat the diseases that afflict them)? )

Under that hypothesis, there would then be no need to play the game of life (make choices).

I suppose they would.

(Based on the above three questions, what kind of relationship does God want to have with us? Is it one where people treat each other with some form of respect? )

Good reduction, though Love seems to rear its ugly head also.

(Based on your answers above, what does that tell us about the kind of being God is?)

Illogical by human standards.

(Why does God need recognition form us? Why does he want us to love him? (please try to avoid the anthropomorphism trap))

Why does a parent want the child to recognize his/her creator?

(And if you were God, what caused you?)

I think what you are posing is that I would be a necessary Being and not contingent upon anything else. Otherwise, who caused the Big Bang?

Just some more thoughts...

Walrus

Kassiana

IntenSity:
If God created us, on what basis should we worship him? If we could create intelligent Robots, should we expect them to worship us? In case God tells us explicitly to worship him, why should we go ahead and do as he tells us to do?

Kass:
A. We should not "worship" the Gods.
B. Of course not.
C. Who says we should?

IS:
If God created us and told us how to live, why should we treat what he says as more "correct" that what we say/ think? Does it follow that just because you have created some being, only you knows what is best for it? On what basis?

Kass:
A. The Gods have hoped, in my opinion, that we will learn on our own how to live.
B. Creating something doesn't mean you know what's best for it...look at the scientists who made it possible for nuclear weapons to exist.

IS:
Why should we expect God to "love" its creation? Isn't it a form of anthropomorphism? For example, if cows could express themselves as us, they could expect their "God" also to mow have a tail etc. On what basis do we assume that the has human qualities and emotions?

Kass:
A. I don't expect any God to do anything.
B. I don't assume the Gods to have human emotions.

IS:
And if indeed he has those human qualities and emotions (anger, love, benevolence paternalism etc) isnt he then, just a powerful "man"? And if that is the case, why then should we worship him?

Kass:
A. Animals have human qualities and emotions (anger, love, desire to serve the group). That does not make them powerful or human. The Gods may share some characteristics with humans without being human themselves.
B. I have already stated that I believe worship to be unnecessary.

IS:
Why did God create us ? If what he wanted was someone to "fellowship" with and know him (as some claim), why did he create a being inferior to him? If you were omnipotent and needed a relationship with another being, would you create beings that are lesser (read inferior) than you or beings that equal you in terms of omniscience and omnipotence?

Kass:
A. Maybe the Gods didn't create us.
B. Why not? I like fellowshipping with my animals, and they're (no offense, babies) dumb as dirt.
C. Who says the Gods NEED to have relationships with us? I say they want to, but don't have to have them.

IS:
In the same vein, if you wanted beings to worship you and fear you, would you create inferior beings or beings that match you in terms of omniscience and omnipotence?

Kass:
I don't think the Gods want us to worship and fear them.

IS:
If God wanted true love (one not based on indebtness, fear or expectation of rewards) why couldn't he have created beings that equal him in omniscience then ask them to love and worship him? Would such beings pose a challenge to him? If not, why would he create inferior beings like ourselves (who cannot even perceive him or treat the diseases that afflict them)?

Kass:
See above re pets. If we limited humans can enjoy even more limited life than ourselves, even fish, which have the interactive (with humans, anyhow) ability of rocks, why can't Gods enjoy our more limited lives?

IS:
Based on the above three questions, what kind of relationship does God want to have with us? Is it one where people treat each other with some form of respect?

Kass:
Depends upon the Gods, doesn't it? I would say the Gods want to have loving relationships with us based upon my experiences with them. To me, love implies respect.

IS:
Based on your answers above, what does that tell us about the kind of being God is?

Kass:
Uh...I don't know. You tell me.

IS:
Why does God need recognition form us? Why does he want us to love him? (please try to avoid the anthropomorphism trap)

Kass:
The Gods don't need recognition from us.

IS:
And if you were God, what caused you?

Kass:
Lots of hot, kinky sex.

sotzo

Hi Intensity:

Let me take a stab at 'em:

If God created us, on what basis should we worship him?

On that basis that God created us for the purpose of worshipping of Him. In other words, because that is what we were designed to do.

If we could create intelligent Robots, should we expect them to worship us?

Not necessarily, unless that is what we designed them to do.

In case God tells us explicitly to worship him, why should we go ahead and do as he tells us to do?

Because that is what we were designed to do and as God he deserves such worship.

If God created us and told us how to live, why should we treat what he says as more "correct" that what we say/ think?

For the same reason I would consult Chilton's auto manual to fix my car - He thoroughly knows our design (ie, purpose).

Does it follow that just because you have created some being, only you knows what is best for it?

If the "you" is an infinite, eternal, unchangeable, immaterial Being then yes. If not, then no it does not necessarily follow.

On what basis?

On the basis that such a Being as defined above would by definition know infinitely more about the created beings than the created beings could know autonomously.

Why should we expect God to "love" its creation?

Well, as for Christian theism, we can know this since he has made redemption possible, which includes redemption of the physical realm including our bodies.

Isn't it a form of anthropomorphism?

Well yes, but we should expect this since we are created in His image. He is personal, we are personal.

For example, if cows could express themselves as us, they could expect their "God" also to mow have a tail etc. On what basis do we assume that the has human qualities and emotions?

This is hyopthetical to the point of almost no value since, to our knowledge, a cow is unable to reflect on what qualities a Being such as a god would have. This is what separates us from cows and so we can, at best, only ask why persons apply such characteristics to God. To answer you question, the basis for knowing God's personhood is similar to how we know a friend's personhood - that is, He reveals it to us.

And if indeed he has those human qualities and emotions (anger, love, benevolence paternalism etc) isnt he then, just a powerful "man"?

No, since our definition of God above contains qualities that man cannot possess and still remain man (ie, immaterial, infinite, etc.)

And if that is the case, why then should we worship him?

But it is not the case that He is just a "powerful man".

Why did God create us?

To worship Him - it is the design as stated above.

If what he wanted was someone to "fellowship" with and know him (as some claim), why did he create a being inferior to him?

First, the Trinity provides a paradigm for fellowship pre-creation. In other words, God was not "fellowshipless" (if you will) prior to creating.

Second, because God cannot create a second eternal, unchangeable, infinite, immaterial Being that is on par with him. If he could, he would cease to be God and we would then be talking about the gods of polytheism.

If you were omnipotent and needed a relationship with another being, would you create beings that are lesser (read inferior) than you or beings that equal you in terms of omniscience and omnipotence?

First, God doesn't "need" another being. He is self-sufficient in and of himself.

Second, I have no idea what I would do if I were omnipotent (ie, God).

In the same vein, if you wanted beings to worship you and fear you, would you create inferior beings or beings that match you in terms of omniscience and omnipotence?

Again, I have to say, I don't know what I would do. This is sort of like asking what type of man I would prefer if I had been born female.

If God wanted true love (one not based on indebtness, fear or expectation of rewards) why couldn't he have created beings that equal him in omniscience then ask them to love and worship him?

Because a Being that was on par with God would not be functioning properly if he were to worship God. Worship presupposes a rightful honor, respect due another which would not be the case with identical gods.

Would such beings pose a challenge to him?

If, for the sake of argument, we accept that He could even create such beings then it would seem they could perhaps challenge him, but that because they were identical it would end up that there would be no "winner". It would essentially be two or more Beings in eternal gridlock. Again, this is quite hypothetical.

If not, why would he create inferior beings like ourselves (who cannot even perceive him or treat the diseases that afflict them)?

Because he wanted to. As for us not being able to percieve him, I disagree, but that is another discussion.

Based on the above three questions, what kind of relationship does God want to have with us?

One in which we worship him out of love for him.

Is it one where people treat each other with some form of respect?

It is one is which we give him the respect that is rightfully his, out of love for him.

Based on your answers above, what does that tell us about the kind of being God is?

It tells us that he is a Being that is eternal, infinite, unchanging, and immaterial who is worthy of worship and who desires that we do so out of love for him. He extends his desire to see us worship him,not out of fear, but out of love, by providing redemption.

Why does God need recognition form us?

He doesn't. Nor does he need an anything else outside of himself.

Why does he want us to love him? (please try to avoid the anthropomorphism trap)

Because he loves us. Your supposed anthro. trap is predicated on the notion that we create who and what God is out of our own "manishness". If that is the thesis you wish to defend then please supply such a defense.

And if you were God, what caused you?

Nothing, since God is immaterial, eternal, infinite and unchanging. At the risk of really going off subject see the first premise of the Kalam argument. Since God did not "begin to exist" he does not require a causal explanation.

cheers,

jkb

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>

Theli

sotzo...

Why would a omnipotent god need people worshipping him? And also, can you give us some argument to why god would even wan't that?

Clearly we were given free will. Why did god give us free will when our purpose was to be "worshipping zombies"?

If that was true, there wouldn't be any atheists, agnostics or polytheists.

This negates our free will. If we were to live our lives after a blueprint, (however perfect it might be) we would still be zombies.

Neither eternal, infinite, unchangable nor immaterial insures perfect knowledge. Straw man.

"If you crawl at my feet and submit to my will, I'll forgive you for being yourself. If you don't, I'll beat you to death."
Do I love you?

Read my post above. Why didn't god create cows in his own image?
Because... drum roll... We created god in our own image.

So, everything with sufficient intelligence to even know about big bang could have been created in god's image? Are you saying that (comparing intelligence), god is just as smart as a human, or is his creations are "dumber" than him?

He can't? So much for omnipotence.

And about omnipotence... I never got an answer on this question.

If you believe in an omniscient/omnipotent god, do you have faith in (A.) god's omniscience/omnipotence or (B.) the obervation made by a human that god is all-knowing/all-powerfull?

*---*
A. If you have faith in god's omnipotence, regardless of any observations, then you admit that the attribute "omnipotence" is invented by yourself, and has no link to reality. Since omniscience/omnipotence is not required (even by god).
B. How can one from a brief observation of a being reach the conclution that, that being is allknowing? In order to do so, you must practicly ask every question that could possibly exist. And for you to verify the answers given to you, you must be omniscient yourself.

I don't see how this works.
*---*

Desire, desire desire...
Not very omnipotent, if you ask me.

But he does desire our subjugation and love?

How can you from a brief observation reach the conclution that a being is timeless?
And how an unchanging being appear in a casual chain of events?
What does immaterial mean?
And did you make this up yourself, or is there any reasoning behind it?

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Deggial ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Deggial,
great points. I agree with you.

WJ
Intensity: ..In case God tells us explicitly to worship him, why should we go ahead and do as he tells us to do?
WJ: Respect/fear, for the God 'that created us.' Similar to parent/child relationships.
Parent-child relationships differ because:
= A parent was once a child so he/she can relate.
= A child's mind/ reasoning capacity is not yet fully developed to make the right decisions: they need guidance. But we are adults.
= A parent is not omnipotent otherwise he would not have to advise/ guide his child. He could for example make the child capable of making the correct decisions and not have to guide them.
= Parents don't create children and there is parental love involved (a product of evolution perhaps).

So, the parent child relationship does not fit. God has no experience living as a human being, he has not had a human perspective, felt human
pain, hunger, lust, fear, joy, mortality, disease and so on. And his advice is likely to be based on assumptions and exclude the "human
element".

"Free-will" does not cut it when you have been created without omniscience and omnipotent. By our very nature, we are constrained within the limits of human capabilities in terms of action and thought.

This free-will you are talking about operates within a set of very limited possibilities. How free is that wholly free? 20% free? Can we
choose to fly? Can we choose to grow beaks? Can we choose not to die?

Then which free will are you talking about? Its like you write a program that can add, divide, multiply and perform other arithmetic
operations then give the program the ability to choose any of the operations then you tell it it has "free-will". Does being able to do
only what you can do constitute free will?
In the case of Christianity, that is the 'means ' by which 'goals' are achieved, whether they are in this life or the life hereafter. [I'm assuming worship suggests prayer, meditation, devotion, communication, revelation, fellowship and so on.]
So its a carrot people are chasing. Reward system. Why can't God grant it to all his creations? Is there a case of limited resources?
Man has hankered for immortality throughout the ages. This "goals" what are they? wealth? immortality?

In your acts of worship. You have excluded sacrifice. Like sacrificing ones own children to a deity.

Intensity: If God created us and told us how to live, why should we treat what he says as more "correct" that what we say/ think? Does it
follow that just because you have created some being, only you knows what is best for it? On what basis?

WJ: Because pragmatically it seems to work.

Pragmatically? We have no experience of this scenario. I would appreciate if you could reason out exactly how it works out.

For example, if we generate a new intelligent species in the lab, do we have monopoly over what they should eat, how they should live and
think? Isn't it possible that we may end up making them live very miserable lives? Wouldnt the best thing to do be let them live and provide anything they could need?

Consciousness. Otherwise, does the designer of a car ( Engineer, etc..) know what is best for the car? And if so, does he/she have exclusive knowledge about what is considered as 'best'?
A car is not intelligent. False analogy.

I'm not sure I understand that one but I would say that it follows that Love is just as illogical as that which you are describing as
somewhat of an analogy. So, in other words, anything is possible unless of course we can fully comprehend the mind of God.
Anything is possible? Like maybe we are a huge experiment? Like God did not intend to create us but it happened by accident? Like maybe God
just stumbled upon us?
Anyway, we dont care about what is possible. More about what is probable.

Why do people idolize their heros? Is there a difference?
Admiration and worhip are ugely different sir. Role model, Icon etc DO NOT equal GOD.
If a hero asks you to sacrifice your child/ wife to him - will you object?

Someone said in another thread that the game of life is much lie a chessmatch. Besides, if you could create a computer robot with a fully
human conscious, free-will, sentience and all the rest, wouldn't they too become omnipotent? In other words, mystery would not have a reason
to exist
Is this your answer? A chessmatch takes place and is meaningful between people who have relatively equal capabilities "level playingground" so
to speak.

In any case, mystery is an artifact of ignorance. We are talking an omniscient God here. Are you saying God avoided making a superior being
to preserve his ignorance about how such a being would react to him?

Intensity: In the same vein, if you wanted beings to worship you and fear you, would you create inferior beings or beings that match you in terms of omniscience and omnipotence?
WJ: Agreed, I suppose you would create them 'inferior' intentionally.

Perhaps the best anology then here is, 'planned obsolescience'.

So God created us to fear him and worship him. Not to love him and have companionship with him?
There is no such a word as "obsolescience".

I suppose they would.
Ahhh, so the Almighty God fears a challenge? Perhaps he fears a revolution? Or maybe in that same vein we are applying anthropomorphisms to the scenario?
What kind of God is it that is so insecure as to fear an equal? Doesn't he want companionship? What about new ideas such a companion would
bring?

Why surround himself with inferior beings? Is that the only way to preserve his almighty stature? Would an intelligent being create black
things then claim whiteness? What kind of intelligence would that be? And would that whiteness be something to be proud of?
when you say:
Under that hypothesis, there would then be no need to play the game of life (make choices).
DO you mean our life is just a game for God? Are atheists part of that game of life?

Intensity: Based on the above three questions, what kind of relationship does God want to have with us? Is it one where people treat each other with some form of respect?
WJ: Good reduction, though Love seems to rear its ugly head also.
We then swiftly cut off the head of love because it's an anthropomorhism. Then we wipe the blood on our pants and sheath our blades then continue reasoning.

Me: Based on your answers above, what does that tell us about the kind of being God is?
WJ: Illogical by human standards.

Human standards are all we have got. You want us to disregard them? Even creation of God is just a poor attempt at creating a "logical" world.

(Why does God need recognition form us? Why does he want us to love him? (please try to avoid the anthropomorphism trap))

Why does a parent want the child to recognize his/her creator?
The parent is a human being. We do not choose to have parental love and need the love from people we have brought to this world. Acceptance is
especially important from people close to us. Human beings have needs to be loved, appreciated etc self-esteem needs.Does God also have them? I told you to avoid anthropomorphisms. I have said previously why this parent/child analogy is false.

I think what you are posing is that I would be a necessary Being and not contingent upon anything else. Otherwise, who caused the Big
Bang?
Maybe there was no big bang. Maybe it was a small bang. Quantum Physics has indicated that matter (vaccum fluctuations) can come from nothing
(ex nihilo) so there is nothing entirely huge about something not being contigent upon another.
In any case, if God just popped out of nothingness that implies he has an even humbler beginning (no one invested anything on him), why then should we worship him? Because he has no one to thank for his existence?

If a mountain popped into existence from nothing and we arose from creation by a sentient being, does the mountain then occupy a higher plane of existence compared to us?
Are we more superior than our shadows? Do we have shadows even when we are dead? And without the light there would be no shadow right? What does that say about Our existence relative to that of the shadow?

Kassiana
Who says we should?

Well, theists do

B. Creating something doesn't mean you know what's best for it...look at the scientists who made it possible for nuclear weapons to
exist.
Nice analogy, but it is not apropos because N. Weapons are not intelligent and are passive as far as how they should be treated is concerned. They have no reasoning capacity and can make no claims.

we largely agree so I will move to Sotzo

On that basis that God created us for the purpose of worshipping of Him. In other words, because that is what we were designed to do.
This would only work if we have no human needs and no reasoning capacity. We can claim things for ourselves and we are creative. And worshipping God is not one of lifes necessities so you cant possibly say that was the purpose. If it was, then how come we can circumvent it
and be atheists - a malfunctioning system?
And if that was Gods purpose in creating us, what is our purpose for living? Do we have anything we can claimfor ourselves?

In any case, some have argued that the purpose of life is more life (sex etc). We evolve to ensure our species remains on this planet.

In fact worhipping of God is against the very nature of life because time that should be spent having sex (creating more life) is spent
discouraging sex, religion can ask us to kill members of our own species as sacrifice to Gods etc. Religion can ask us not to donate blood and let people die from overbleeding and so on and so forth.

Because that is what we were designed to do and as God he deserves such worship.
Who gets to decide what God deserves? Himself? If thats the case, then what does the word "deserve" mean?

For the same reason I would consult Chilton's auto manual to fix my car - He thoroughly knows our design (ie, purpose).

God has no experience living as a human being. So its unreasonable to ask him about how humans should live.

I will continue from here later

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Theli

If god loves his creation and is unchangable at the same time, doesn't that mean that his love for us is absolute and uncontitional?

God can neither start hating me for my actions, nor forgive me. Because that would include change. Something an unchanging god is incapable of. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Theli

What is god?

According to the posts on this thread, god is both immaterial and unchangable.
Wich would mean that god has no beginning, no orderly structure, and is static.

Now, how can a being without having a structure (or being product of a structure), not having a point of creation (source) and no change (actions, events) be said to even exist?
Isn't this the perfect definition of nothingness?

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Deggial ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Nice deduction Deggial