What would you do if it were proven...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Candide_West
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
warpspeedpetey said:
So you’re only willing to worship a G-d who is inferior to you? A G-d who has to meet the standards that you set? Why don’t you just worship yourself? I don’t see a difference between the G-d you want to worship and yourself.
Click to expand...
And you are different? What if “G-d” turns out to be quite different from what you expect of him right now? Would you still wirship him? Just because he is powerful?
 
warpspeedpetey said:
So you’re only willing to worship a G-d who is inferior to you? A G-d who has to meet the standards that you set? Why don’t you just worship yourself? I don’t see a difference between the G-d you want to worship and yourself.
Click to expand...
Warp, isn’t this why there’s cafeteria Christianity and one Catholic Church? Same premise, different application. :rolleyes:
 
AnAtheist said:
…What if “G-d” turns out to be quite different from what you expect of him right now? …
Click to expand...
G-d cannot be different than what I think He is. Beyond Actus Purus is nothing, and since an existent nothing is a logical contradiction there can only be Actus Purus. Everything else is contingent on Actus Purus and as such there can be no greater being. If I were to worship a creature contingent on the act of being for its own existence, then that would not be G-d.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
TruthSeeker60;7720128:
If that were the case, I would believe in that god, and would try to learn much about him.

I would worship him if, and only if, I judge him as being worthy of worship.
Click to expand...
So you’re only willing to worship a G-d who is inferior to you?
Click to expand...
No. I said if “I judge him as being worthy of worship.” That doesn’t entail the god being inferior to me.

Please avoid twisting my words next time.
warpspeedpetey said:
A G-d who has to meet the standards that you set?
Click to expand...
I’ll only worship a god who has met certain standards. Otherwise, determining whether a being is worthy of worship would be arbitrary. I’ll have to decide what standards are appropriate.

One standard that is not appropriate for determining whether or not a being is worthy of worship is “might makes right.”
 
TruthSeeker60 said:
No. I said if “I judge him as being worthy of worship.” That doesn’t entail the god being inferior to me.

Please avoid twisting my words next time.

I’ll only worship a god who has met certain standards. Otherwise, determining whether a being is worthy of worship would be arbitrary. I’ll have to decide what standards are appropriate.

One standard that is not appropriate for determining whether or not a being is worthy of worship is “might makes right.”
Click to expand...
If YOU are the one who sets the standards for ‘truth’ and YOU are the one judging whether a being is worthy of worship by YOUR standards, then you are indeed worshipping a god who is inferior to YOU. His ‘worship’ depends on YOUR judgment; therefore you are superior to him because you have the power to give, or deny, that worship.
 
TruthSeeker60 said:
…Otherwise, determining whether a being is worthy of worship would be arbitrary. I’ll have to decide what standards are appropriate…
Click to expand...
If G-d had to meet your moral standards, then He wouldn’t really be G-d, would He? Your standard makes G-d subservient to you. No one can set a standard for G-d. You cannot set moral standards, you cannot set intellectual standards, you cannot set any standard of any kind on G-d, because doing so would mean worshiping a being that is subservient to your will, your desires, your wants. Such a being is clearly not G-d. G-d can only be that which relies on nothing else, or that thing would be greater than G-d. G-d therefore can only be the very act of existing itself, or Actus Purus. On which everything else is dependent, but which does not rely on anything else because the alternative to existence, “nothing exists” or no-thing=some-thing is a contradiction A=notA. Therefore there is no alternative to G-d, the very act of being.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
If G-d had to meet your moral standards, then He wouldn’t really be G-d, would He? Your standard makes G-d subservient to you. No one can set a standard for G-d. You cannot set moral standards, you cannot set intellectual standards, you cannot set any standard of any kind on G-d, because doing so would mean worshiping a being that is subservient to your will, your desires, your wants. Such a being is clearly not G-d. G-d can only be that which relies on nothing else, or that thing would be greater than G-d. G-d therefore can only be the very act of existing itself, or Actus Purus. On which everything else is dependent, but which does not rely on anything else because the alternative to existence, “nothing exists” or no-thing=some-thing is a contradiction A=notA. Therefore there is no alternative to G-d, the very act of being.
Click to expand...
You have grown young Jedi. 🙂
 
TruthSeeker60 said:
I’ll only worship a god who has met certain standards. Otherwise, determining whether a being is worthy of worship would be arbitrary. I’ll have to decide what standards are appropriate.

One standard that is not appropriate for determining whether or not a being is worthy of worship is “might makes right.”
Click to expand...
I recently read a cool definition for God. God is a Being with no restrictions. He does not have to meet “certain standards” set by an individual human.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
If YOU are the one who sets the standards for ‘truth’ and YOU are the one judging whether a being is worthy of worship by YOUR standards, then you are indeed worshipping a god who is inferior to YOU. His ‘worship’ depends on YOUR judgment; therefore you are superior to him because you have the power to give, or deny, that worship.
Click to expand...
warpspeedpetey said:
If G-d had to meet your moral standards, then He wouldn’t really be G-d, would He? Your standard makes G-d subservient to you. No one can set a standard for G-d. You cannot set moral standards, you cannot set intellectual standards, you cannot set any standard of any kind on G-d, because doing so would mean worshiping a being that is subservient to your will, your desires, your wants. Such a being is clearly not G-d. G-d can only be that which relies on nothing else, or that thing would be greater than G-d. G-d therefore can only be the very act of existing itself, or Actus Purus. On which everything else is dependent, but which does not rely on anything else because the alternative to existence, “nothing exists” or no-thing=some-thing is a contradiction A=notA. Therefore there is no alternative to G-d, the very act of being.
Click to expand...
Determining a set of standards might not be making the standards, but discovering or discerning the standards. For comparison, many people, including Catholics, believe there is a thing such as objective morality (or “mind-independent” morality) by which we can judge the actions of others as right or wrong. If this were so, these moral principles would be discovered, not made (since an “objective”, i.e. “mind-independent”, morality that is made by a mind would be an oxymoron).

For all those theists who actually think that:

determining standards for determining whether a being is worthy of worship​

being “inferior” to the person who determines the standards,

Do you judge the god you believe in to be worthy of worship based solely on him being powerful? If not, then by what criteria do you judge him as being worthy of praise?
 
TruthSeeker60 said:
Determining a set of standards might not be making the standards, but discovering or discerning the standards. For comparison, many people, including Catholics, believe there is a thing such as objective morality (or “mind-independent” morality) by which we can judge the actions of others as right or wrong. If this were so, these moral principles would be discovered, not made (since an “objective”, i.e. “mind-independent”, morality that is made by a mind would be an oxymoron).

For all those theists who actually think that:

determining standards for determining whether a being is worthy of worship​

being “inferior” to the person who determines the standards,

Do you judge the god you believe in to be worthy of worship based solely on him being powerful? If not, then by what criteria do you judge him as being worthy of praise?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, objective morality is used in a billion different ways because many people use subjective reasoning or relativism in describing it. The only way for people to be on the same page is to recognize that morality, which is basically a description of a particular action, is based on an objective truth which does not depend on a person’s thoughts one way or another.

However, if one so chooses, one can consider “determining standards” as being similar to determining morality. From post 332: “Determining a set of standards might not be making the standards, but discovering or discerning the standards.”

I rest my case.
 
TruthSeeker60 said:
Determining a set of standards might not be making the standards, but discovering or discerning the standards. For comparison, many people, including Catholics, believe there is a thing such as objective morality (or “mind-independent” morality) by which we can judge the actions of others as right or wrong. If this were so, these moral principles would be discovered, not made (since an “objective”, i.e. “mind-independent”, morality that is made by a mind would be an oxymoron).
Click to expand...
If G-d were to be dependent on any other standards, than he wouldn’t be G-d. It looks like a distinction without a difference to me.
… by what criteria do you judge him as being worthy of praise?
Click to expand...
As we are explaining, you can’t.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
TruthSeeker60;7726085:
Determining a set of standards might not be making
Click to expand...
the standards, but discovering or discerning the standards. For comparison, many people, including Catholics, believe there is a thing such as objective morality (or “mind-independent” morality) by which we can judge the actions of others as right or wrong. If this were so, these moral principles would be discovered, not made (since an “objective”, i.e. “mind-independent”, morality that is made by a mind would be an oxymoron).

If G-d were to be dependent on any other standards, than he wouldn’t be G-d.
Click to expand...
If you define god as “a disembodied mind who created the universe”, which seems to be the most common general definition, there is nothing about using a criteria for discerning something about the entity that would conflict with that definition. Considering that, I need to ask, how do you define “god”?
warpspeedpetey said:
TruthSeeker60;7726085:
For all those theists who actually think that:

determining standards for determining whether a being is worthy of worship​

being “inferior” to the person who determines the standards,

Do you judge the god you believe in to be worthy of worship based solely on him being powerful? If not, then by what criteria do you judge him as being worthy of praise?
Click to expand...
As we are explaining, you can’t.
Click to expand...
If that’s so, there would be no reason to worship or praise that being besides bribes or threats from that entity.
 
TruthSeeker60 said:
… using a criteria for discerning something about the entity that would conflict with that definition. Considering that, I need to ask, how do you define “god”?..
Click to expand...
What does the definition of G-d have to do with the standards you think G-d should meet? They aren’t the same thing. We don’t set standards for G-d to meet, He tells us what His standards are. You are confusing knowing what G-d is, with how He should be.
 
To get something that satisfies everyone, you have about something that in itself would be so close to God as self (all acceptable), he threw the idea of God’s nonexistence of court.

。。。。。。。。。

Buy WoW Gold
WoW GoldCheap WoW
Gold
 
With this many posts I am not sure that you even check your thread any longer, but froma true believer, in God, who has been kicked while he was down and would not wish his life upon anyone, what you are asking is weather we would turn our back on our beliefs. To have absolute proof does not come to play in matters of faith. To have proof that God does not exist purely means that you have turned your back to him, He will be right there when you turn back, which would give you the proof that you were looking for. God gives us what we want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top