Skeptical

But doesn't the desire for something imply imperfection? In other words, if I want something, I desire something because I am lacking something. If God is (as has been claimed) unchangeable, infinite, etc, it seems silly to say that such a being _desires_ something.

Additionally, the difference between "need" and "desire" is just semantics for God as you have portrayed such a being. If God "desires" something and that desire is unfulfilled, that definitely implies a limitation. Therefore, even if it is somehow intelligible for God to "desire" something, that "desire" _must_ be fulfilled or God's will would continously be thwarted. Given this, any "desire" by God becomes a "need" in order to remove the limitation.

WJ

Intensity,

What is your point of making the assertions that you are making about God?

For instance, you said all of these things:


As I mentioned earlier, even God makes mistakes. And regrets them.

Dont you find it a bit arrogant of humans to think they know what their creator thinks?

I just asked some questions. That implies I am all-knowing? [end quote]

Have you not contradicted yourself?

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

seebs

I think there's a big dependance in what we mean when we say "omnipotence". I think omnipotence does not allow for logical impossibilities, although I could be wrong. With that limitation, it may turn out that it's not possible to make an entity which is genuinely free, but always does the right thing... so you might *want* a free entity which always does the right thing, but there's no logically consistent way to produce such a thing.

Theli

sotzo...

Are you pretending that wants aren't based on needs?
If he wants people to worship him (wich not all people do) then he ultimatly desires a change in the world outside of him. And why would a omnipotent god do this?
If he's desires/wants can just be blinked into existence/happening?

Listening...

There's that desire again. Remember, everything he want's can just be blinked into existence.
I don't see why he should create an undesirable (for him) world, and then pine for it to change by itself.

Fellowship between a ruler and his subjugated prisoners. This sounds really weird.

He obviously didn't do a very good work.
Anyway... Its the same begging his creation to change. You also haven't given me a explaination to why he would want us to worship him unless he would need approval from his lesser beings.
The only answer you gave me is "his character", wich is merely an extension of my question. How can his nature be this needy (and clearly unsatisfied) but still be allpowerfull?

1. As people has stated before. He (the church?) wants us to have faith in his existence, without questioning it (the church again?).
2. He wants people to quote-- worship him --end quote.
3. He wants us to go againsts our (potentially evil) nature.

When I gaze on all this from a prespective it doesn't seem like god created the humans to begin with, but merely rules them.

Omnipotence + Omniscience + Omnipresence. It seems more to me that god was not any of those omni's and indeed failed in his creation.
And now he's screaming and barking at his humans to fall into line, like a desperate man with a gun.

This is my problem, why did god make such a fuss about making us potentially deceptive (is this a word?). And now screams (through the bible) with his fingers pointing in all possible directions, "go over there!".
Getting mad and punishing us for our deception, and wrong steps. Wich was in the first place so important for us. And for some reason important to him.

You aren't resorting to barking yourself now, are you?

Speaking from personall reference. I would rather follow my own "potentially dumb" decitions than blindly following a blueprint.
The dangers of following your own heart (poetic speaking) is insignificant to the loss of not doing it.
Wasn't that pretty?

I don't care how he would do it.
I guess it all comes down to trust. I would assume that the blueprint he gives you to follow is more fitting his own needs (or was it desires?) than your own.

Ok, we leave that part.

What is perfect knowledge? really?
I can understand (to a degree) omniscience. Does perfect knowledge mean he knows the best choice to everything?
Best to who?

I'm sorry, I thought hell was mentioned in the bible as a punishment. And ALOT of christians believe nonbelievers will go there to. But I guess it all comes down to wich parts of the bible you leave out when reading it.
I also thought god wanted us to woship him.

Jesus?
I've always found this strange. Where did Jesus go after his death? And where did he come from?
Most christians will say heaven. With that knowledge, one can argue that his sacrifice was not so great after all.
Jesus came from heaven, and to heaven he returned. Where was the sacrifice?
And wich sins did he die for? The sins commited by man, or the sins that will be commited? And how does his sacrifice change my position in terms of salvation/damnation - heaven/hell?

Once again, it all comes down to wich parts of the bible you leave out, and wich you don't.

Are you out of ammo?
He didn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And how do you know?
What kind of human was created in god's image?
Homo erectus? Neanderthal? Homo Sapiens? Our future speices (if we survive)?

Because I'm not selfdeluded. I try to look at different theories/possibilities.

You mean by refuting your BECAUSE HE DIDN'T!!!!. I think you did a much greater job at that yourself.

I love my dog, and still I can assure you that he is much dumber than me. And I can assure you, that you and I is extremely much dumber than an omniscient god with "perfect knowledge". Why would he find our pityfull minds socially desirable?
It would be like us having a conversation with a cow on how good grass taste.
And why would god even have social needs? I thought he didn't have any needs.

Halt!
No difference?
If I had god's perfect knowledge, then why would I need his directions (blueprint)?
I'm not even going to go into the power of god, comparing to my own.

But I can?

Omnimax creatures with perfect knowledge? ehhh... Yoda?

No, he who wrote Genesis did that. Obviously because the gods are usually created in the image of humans to begin with.
In one word - anthropomorphism.

So you are saying that I, using my own brain can design an entire universe and get it all to work?
I don't see how any prior knowledge would even help me. Unless you say that a universe existed before god created this one, that looked excacly like this one? So much for the designer.

Thank you for that.

The question is simply if the omnipotence was observed by yourself or by someone else. No tricks.

Didn't you skip a part here?
Anyway... what I meant by that is that god doesn't need omnipotence to manifest what can be observed by humans. He doesn't need complete knowledge of the universe, in order to be it's creator. We have no reason to assume this.

How would you else get to know something?
If someone tells you god is omnipotent, you must arrive at the conclution that he is telling the truth. You might do this on the grounds that it sounds reasonable, or that he has never lied before. Or you might investigate it yourself.
At any rate, you must in some way go from point A (not knowing something) to B (knowing something).
You are telling me that god told the people that he was omnimax, then you must take his word for it. This doesn't excacly hold water when discussing with someone who doesn't believe in god.
It is impossible for him to reveal his omnimax to us as we are not omnimax ourselfs and can therefore not confirm it. We must assume. And its not a small assumption. How do you know god exists on jupiter for instance? (omnipresence)

What assumption? That we need to move from point A to point B in order to get to point B?

But you do need something. Whatever this BMW can do for you, you need. It may give you social acceptance (that's a need), or it can establish you above other people (also a need).
Perhaps you desire the car becasue it's fast. Excitement and stimulation are needs aswell.
By needs I don't mean "you need it, or you'll die".

You are throwing gasoline on an open flame here.
How can you observe that a being is infallible and allknowing?

1st of all, you did not observe a omnimax god, you observed a book where it was writen about an omnimax god. Based on just as unlikely observations.
2nd, why does it require a timeless source? Why do you assume that the source still exists?

Just what I thought.

advocate_11

Well, I went ahead and browsed through some of the Westminster Assembly documents for a basis, and tried to come up with a somewhat cohesive approach to answering your questions. If you find that any of them are particularly worth following up, well, here they are... I will make an effort to respond to criticisms, but I am not much at all attached to what I came up with.

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

Yes, if we have programmed them to do so then, but not necessarily only then we should expect them to worship us at the time and in the manner which we programmed them to.

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

The elect might worship God. God is to be worshipped because he has provided that you (if you are elect), through no merit of your own thoughts or actions will be spared eternal torment and be brought into paradise for all eternity at the day of judgement when God visits upon each their rightful dues. God will be worshipped by the elect because he has foreordained that they will do so.

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?

I am not sure what you intend by "best". Do you mean the choice which will, over the being's life, maximize the amount of pleasure it will experience? Gos knows this choice on the basis that he is omniscient.

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?

Some may "expect" God to love his creation, while others may not. God does "love" his creation in that in considering the mechanism whereby God has an emotional state, the emotional state as it corresponds to God's creation is in part one of love.

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?

God possesses a mechanism always having an emotional state. God's emotional state changes as it does necessarily by his nature, and corresponds in a particular fashion to the current state of affairs, but is not caused by this particular state of affairs.

Why did God create us?

God created man as a necessarily forthcoming manifestation of God's glory.

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?

God has foreordained that some should "fellowship" with himself because it was by nature necessary for him to do so. Yet, as I am seemingly neither omniscient nor omnipotent, I do not feel entirely qualified to respond to your hypothetical. However, it does not seem to me that my possessing omniscience and omnipotence alone entail it being logically necessary for me to create a being of one particular sort even if it is given that I will necessarily create a being of some sort.

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?

Assuming that you wish to carry on with your previous hypothetical, I will first note that I qualify my response in the same way I did that to your previous question. Then, yes, if I wished beings to worship and fear me, it seems that one possible situation in which this might arise is if these supposed beings were a great deal less knowledgeable and powerful than myself. Were I truly omniscient, I suspect that I could list quite a number of possible situations that may give rise to this state of affairs.

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)?

Actually, a number of your qualifications to "love" are infact those that God has foreordained to be found in a number of those that represent themselves to love himself. It seems to be logically possible that there may exist a God of the sort that manifests his glory by creating beings that possess omniscience, but to my knowledge, God has not created beings of this sort. In what sense do you suggest that a being possessing omniscience might "pose a challenge" to God?

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?

The relationship that God has ordained to for there to be between God and man is that God is the creator of man, and that man is a necessarily forthcoming manifestation of God's glory. No respect is due man from God. Respect is given to God by man insofar as God has foreordained it to be given.

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

It appears to tell us that "God" is a being about which I am at the moment asserting that it possesses a nature of the sort such that its possessor manifests its glory at least in some part by creating man.

Why does God need recognition form us?

God has foreordained that some should suppose to express recognition of himself. God has done this because it was by his nature necessary that he should do so.

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

God has foreordained that some should represent themselves as expressing love toward himself. God has done this because it was by his nature necessary that he should do so.

And if you were God, what caused you?

Well, that is again a rather difficult perspective to suppose, but insofar as I feel that I can suppose it, I would say, "I was not caused."

[edit: ubb]

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: advocate_11 ]</p>

Theli

advocate_11...
Is god really this vain?
Is it just me, or is god suffering from low selfesteem?

He needs humans to remind himself of his own power, just like a bully needs his victims.

Sorry for my bad english...
Deggial.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Deggial ]</p>

Theli

Sotzo...

Why do you escape this question?
Let's call god A, and living creatures B.
Let's also reffer to our own human nature as 2948593. In a state of constant evolution, B is currently 2948593.


God created man in his image
I would now like to state that the probablility for A = B(2948593) at this very moment is near insignificance, due to the constant change of B, and the unchangable nature of A.

Man created god in his image
But what if A was a product of B? B -&gt; A
The probablility for A = B(2948593) is now 100%.

Another way of looking at it is trying to shoot a rapidly moving target.
First while standing still. (A = 2948593 B = 2948593)
Then while moving in the same speed and direction as the target. (A = B = 2948593)

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the bullets has an infinite velocity.


Just a thought.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Deggial ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Sotzo
Intensity: What makes you think that cows cannot carry on a relationship with God - is God only human?

Sotzo: Cows cannot carry on a relationship with God since they are not able to exercise their wills toward him. And no, God is not human but by virute of the fact that we are created in his image, we expect to find human-like charcateristics in Him. More correctly we find God-like qualitites in us such as the ability to carry on personal relationships.
What are these God like qualities in us?
Do cows have to have the ability to excercise their will toward God in order to have a relationship with him? Isn't it probable, that by taking good care of their kids, they do their part in their relationship with God?

If you mean that through us God is worshipped then fine. Whether the connotations you put forth by the word "tools" holds up, I would have to know what you mean in more detail.

For example, we have the need for sex. Some of us, for whatever reason cant have sex with fellow humans. So we create dildos and inflatable dolls for sex. They are our tools of sex. In the same manner, God needs/ likes to be worshipped (equally omniscient and omnipotent beings cant worship him). Therefore God creates us to worship him, we are his tools of worship ie we are designed to meet a specific need/ purpose. Do you agree?

No, we are not his junior partners. He is God, we are the created. But that distinction doesn't mean man isn't important to God. In fact, Christoloigcally believers inherit all of the rights to be called sons/daughters (but that is, again, another discussion).
You are right. Tools of worship cant possibly be junior partners. We cannot be his sons and daughters because we do not inherit any of his omniscience and omnipotence. We remain mortal and ignorant of many things. Sons and daughters in name, not in practice. Of what practical use is that kind of "symbolic" inheritance? Maybe Jesus (if he existed) could somewhat qualify as a true son of God(aah, the water into wine!).

How does he exploit us? Have you no freewill? You've obviously chosen not to praise and worship him so why do you act shackled?
In the face of such a huge cosmos, helplessness and mortality, many humans have fallen to their knees, humbled by their insignificance and "worshiped" God. Because they have been taught thats the way to beat the eternal pain and mortality trap. This is exploitation. Average people are not capable of excercising free will when human life has been set up to make it best to "beleive and save ones soul".(assuming the christian God exists)
Of course some of us can see beyond the thick smog of human frailty and mortality and see that beyond the veil of fear and pain, there actually is NO God.

Further, just to leave theism for a moment and reverse the "exploit" comment back onto a naturalistic worldview....on the assumptions of the latter, we are in a Darwinian survival of the fittest race. On those terms, I SHOULD want to make use of every opportunity to exploit others to my benefit. This will throw the probability in my favor for my progeny.
Survival for the fittest is regulated by adaptation. Thats why we have the leopards, lions, antelopes, hyenas, buffaloes etc in the savannah. The prey adapts to enable its survival in the presence of the predator.

So Only God exploits. He is holding all the cards he is a player, he is also a ref/ umpire in your game of life(if he exists).

Therefore, on the terms of your own worldview, from whence comes a charge of explotation as a negative thing
Its negative because it goes against the rules of natural justice which is evident in any situation. Anything that causes pain and suffering to humans/ reduces survival chances for humans is negative. I hope you know that morality is an artifact of civilization.

Excluded on the basis that they are incapable of having a meaningful relationship with God. Now, empirically, I can't verify that cows aren't capable of such a relationship.
You can't verify but you know, right?

I am not a cow and I cannot get into the mind of one to observe it. But we are going to end up in some pretty serious absurd discussion if we request empirical evidence for demonstrating the ability/desire of cows, amoebas, chairs, donkeys, etc. to carry on personal, human-like relationships.
And you are afraid of that? Should I accept your unsupported assertions for the fear of entering an absurd discussion? Why would it be absurd? Because I hold you to demonstrate your beliefs?
If it has to be absurd, this is the place.

Can you demonstrate why an assumption about cows, such as the one I'm making is an inappropriate assumption?
I do not find it inappropriate sir.

My answer is the same as it would be if you were to ask me what a fish would do if he could walk and perform math calculations - which is, I don't know.
This is a strawman. The question contains the answer.

I have no idea what would be a valid way to reason about what a cow would do if he could think about God and draw.
Another strawman argument. I asked you what it would draw, NOT what it would do.

However, using this argument to conclude God does not exist is a non-sequitur
Another strawman. I did not use the argument to conclude God does not exist. I used it to demonstrate the anthropomorphic nature of our beliefs about God. And my point is that we would like to believe God is loving because we would like God to be loving: we can relate to loving.

[/b]He has in the person of Jesus, in his Scripture, in his creation (especially if the first premise in the Kalam argument holds true). You may disagree with these sources, but bring up the charges and we'll discuss. As for the time being, I can only answer your question as to how he has revealed himself.[/b]
Which Jesus, the Logos or the "historical" Jesus?

Since God is immaterial, he is none of these nor their opposites.
Immaterial is one of the important characteristics of nothing.

Infinite, unchanging, immaterial are part of the deinition of nothingness!?!? How so?
Infinite: Having no boundaries or limits.
Immaterial: Having no material body or form

- Does nothing occupy space and have size? No, nothing is infinite and unmeasurable.
- Does nothing change? No, nothing cannot change because only things change.
- Is nothing immaterial? Yes, nothing is immaterial.

Ergo If God is immaterial, unchanging and infinite, then he is nothing.

Does nothing exist? You tell me.

Refute that.

Yes he does, because it is rightfully his. Further, see my last response for an answer as to why God cannot violate his own nature with regard to creating duplicates of Himself.
I must have missed it, please paste it in your next response.

You are saying God has a nature? If he cant go against his nature, doesnt that mean he is NOT omnipotent?

And if he has a nature how did he get that nature? Did he decide upon what was to be his nature? If he did decide, doesn't that mean that it was in his nature to pick a nature?

Intensity: Why would a self-sufficient being need to create anything?

Sotzo: Because he wants to. See my BMW illustration in my last post.

Having a want is the very antithesis of self-sufficiency.

Intensity: I asked a direct question. Your honour, hostile witness, move to strike. (*the judge leans forward and says "please answer the question"*)

Sotzo: Are you seriously inferring that a judge would allow such a hypothetical question within the bounds of proper questioning?!?!?
Its a hypothetical courtroom, the case is hypothetical even the judge is hypothetical. He would be going against his hypothetical nature to disallow hypothetical question.

I were omnipotent I would force Geddy Lee to give me backstage passes to all upcoming Rush shows. I would then make myself appear at each show and force him to let me get up on stage with them with my guitar. I would then force the crowd to wildly applaud for me while Alex Lifeson stands back and watches a flawless solo to Limelight. Seriously!
Oh man! hahahahahah!! huh huh! you made me laugh. I love this!

Intensity: So its your assertion that rightful honour and respect can only come from inferior beings?

Sotzo: No, but it is the nature of the case between God and man which is the subject of this discussion.
If No (and you have contradicted yourself by saying No), then if what God wants is rightful honour and respect, he might as well create beings who are omniscient and omnipotent like him right?

Intensity: Why would we need any winners?

Sotzo: Because God number one would require to be worshipped as the supreme God and so would God number 2. Both being of the same infinite strength, there would be no outcome.
Who needs an outcome? We weren't designing a system (input-procesing-output) were we?

To say God number one needs to be worshipped again, means your God no 1 is NOT self sufficient.
Which will open a can of worms shortly...

Or possibly it is because he is real that we are able to imagine him so well at a level that we can even debate his attributes
They would still be imagined/ unreal attributes.
And he would still be unreal.

IS: This is a non-sequitur. You did not mention love for him, nor where it comes from.

Sotzo: It comes from God's nature.
Its a product of evolution. Its for our survival. I argue that if God has love, its useless for him because it serves no practical purpose. Therefore God has no love because he does not need it (if he is rational anyway) Are you saying God has wasted/ unused emotions?

If so, what purpose does his love serve him? Infecting us with it?

Then if evolutionary development eventually leads to a production of rampant hate, you should logically have no problem with that.
I have no problem with anything that can be demostrated. Please demonstrate it. Hate is a defensive survival mechanism, so is fear. They both help us avoid potential harm.

Gotta run fellaz

sotzo

Hi Skeptical!

But doesn't the desire for something imply imperfection? In other words, if I want something, I desire something because I am lacking something.

Not every desire is a need. Think of kids at Christmastime.

If God is (as has been claimed) unchangeable, infinite, etc, it seems silly to say that such a being _desires_ something.

Not if desire&lt;&gt;need.

Additionally, the difference between "need" and "desire" is just semantics for God as you have portrayed such a being. If God "desires" something and that desire is unfulfilled, that definitely implies a limitation.

Not within the context of free-will which you are leaving out. More specifically, God's desire for man is that he would love God out of his own desire. In other words, it is not the case, as it has been suggested by some on this thread, that God desires love from "zombies". Rather, it is his desire that man loves Him of his own free-will. In this context, God can have a desire, that desire can be "unfullfilled" (ie, man does not love him out of free-will) and God retains his attributes wihtout limitations.

Therefore, even if it is somehow intelligible for God to "desire" something, that "desire" _must_ be fulfilled or God's will would continously be thwarted. Given this, any "desire" by God becomes a "need" in order to remove the limitation.

Only if you leave out his desire for man's love out of free-will. Further, within a free-will context, you would actually have a situation in which God would violate his own attributes (ie, have limitations as you've said) if a man loved him against his free-will (ie, God forced him to love Him.

cheers,

jkb

Ted Hoffman

Ryanfire,
I think life is special gift, something we don't necessarily need to understand, but we do need to help each other through existence, and explore what's out there.
I don't agree that life is a gift. Because that implies it came from someone or was given/ bestowed to us by someone. Is death too a Gift? and cancer? What about mental illness?

seebs
these issues are so close to axioms that I have found proof to be a dead-end game.

It depends on the objectives at the beginning of the game. I find nothing dead-end about them.

No, because there are lots of gods believed in who are not worshipped, because they are conveniently distant enough not to merit any kind of response.
Like which ones? No Gods exist. Only beliefs in Gods exist.
In the mean time, I'll stick with my answer.
That is allright. But lets be clear that you cannot prove/ demonstrate that worship is a natural response to the existence of a God.
What would people do if God actually existed then rebuked worshippers angrily and said he does not want to be worshipped?
Would they stop worshipping? Would they continue worshipping because it pleases God or because their belief systems require them to worship?

I don't know. What exactly do you mean by "rational"? Is it rational to feel relieved when peeing after really having to go?
Yes.
1. I need to take a crack.
2. If I dont take a crack, I will shit in my pants and I hate the smell of crap.
3. Therefore I should go and take a crack.

Taking a crack is therefore a rational decision though it serves some biological purposes.

1. God exists. Is there evidence?
2. Yeah, he inspired men and said in his books that he exists.
3. What does God want?
4. He wants us to worship him.
5. Ok, lets kneel down and pray.

Is it rational to praise God and pray?

I think the world in general is pleasant and interesting, often beautiful. Going crazy doesn't strike me as beautiful in general, but my wife has written stories which make a good case for at least some cases being beautiful. Rotting in a grave? It doesn't meet my physical aesthetic sense very well, but it's a beautiful thing to watch nature continue making more living things from dead things, over and over.
Is it (natute) worth worshipping? What is nature - God?
I accept no burden of proof; I only have a burden of proof if I wish to convince someone to believe me, or act in a given way. I am quite comfortable with the fact that most people will not believe in God, just as a fair number of people don't seem to really believe that all the other bipeds are self-aware in any meaningful sense.
It must be easy living with beliefs that dont need proof huh?
I envy you. It reminds me of when I was a kid. I even believed in God. Do you believe in God?

You're an exceptionally open-minded person, what with your firm standards that no one should think anything without proof, and that nothing is worth considering if someone only thinks it might be true.
Ok, I am sorry. But then, this is a philosophical forum. In the Misc discussions, if you say something, no one will ask for proof. Sorry to come across as intolerant. Just higher standards here...
But to hold something as true without a basis, is the very definition of irrational.

Anyone. It's pretty clear that your mind is made up, and that no sequence of words would constitute a reason for you to change your mind at this point. You don't appear to be interested in how other people think, or how their systems of axioms work together; you're just interested in showing that you can disbelieve those axioms consistently. Very good, we're all very impressed.
Oh, come on. Relax. Its too early to coil back and accuse me of having a closed mind. Even if my mind is made up (you are a mind reader?), thats not the issue, but the arguments I make. hammer them away if you find them weak. Crying foul wont garner u any sympathy here.

I don't understand the question. I know it because I'm a Christian, and I believe I have understood your questions, and I can make sense of them only by redefining words in terms that are inconsistent with the basic tenets of my belief system.
99% of us have Xstian backgrounds. So you cant just claim the questions dont make sense in a xstian framework and expect us to buy that. You have to demonstrate that.
Which words do you need redefined? Being vague is a weak stance to take.
What is your belief system? Catholic?

Your original questions are very hard to understand as meaningful ones within my set of axioms; I can switch axioms to answer them, but that hardly helps you understand anything. However, I see no evidence that understanding is high on your list of goals; this reads a lot more like an attack than an inquiry.
Its double-pronged. Choose your perspective and respond from it. If you find anything hard to understand, ask. Don't just whine and whine. Its apallingly pathetic.

I would expect you to be able to cope with the idea that not everyone has a complete and perfect answer to everything. Maybe your belief system allows you to do this; mine doesn't. I have accepted any number of things as practical answers, so I have a basic model of the world, but I don't know that I'd call that "certainty".
Ok, so? I am supposed to go easy on you? How old are you anyway?
If you are a kid, where is daddy? These board can damage your brains.

I expect you, if you ask questions, to be able to accept that the answers may not be the kinds of answers you would have accepted yourself.
All you have told me is that you are not sure and you find the questions difficult etc. Are those what you call answers?

Philosophies other than your own are often strange and unusual.
There are no strange and unusual philosophies in this world. What can be strange are opinions and beliefs. A belief does not equal a philosophy.

In most cases, the answer only makes sense if you presuppose the surrounding theology.
Well, then suppose a theology and provide an answer. Then we see whether worship is sensible.