Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why does God need to be worshipped?
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5501 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 5 of 64 (467129)
05-19-2008 5:56 PM


I think the more general question is:
What could a being that is Infinite and perfect possibly gain from the actions of inferior beings that are imperfect and finite?
If a being stands to gain from receiving the attention or acceptance of finite creatures then this being must be limited and not infinite or perfect. An infinite, perfect, and autonomous being would contain within itself an infinite measure of happiness and contentment. To state otherwise implies that this being is limited. You cannot increase your position by adding to the infinite and you have nothing to gain by trying to do so. Ignoring Cantor's Cardinal sets, Infinity+1=Infinity.
Many of the postulates theologians offer regarding the relationship between God and Man are not consistent with the properties they like to assign to God, The even more formidable task is trying to reconcile the attributes of God with scripture. Emotions such as jealousy and sadness cannot be seen as consistent with an infinite and perfect being. One can certainly avoid the inconsistency by redefining the properties you assign to God, but doing so flies in the face of the Theological traditions of the three main monotheistic religions.
An infinite and perfect being can gain nothing from the worship, acceptance, or love offered by finite beings --a cup already filled to the brim will not take on any more water. It is also impossible to state without contradiction that an infinite and perfect being can gain anything by creating finite beings. That such a perfect being would be motivated to engage in such a creative act itself implies an existence that is less than infinite.
The corollary is also true: Finite beings stand much to gain from the infinite. In the case of Christianity, there is an infinite reward. There is much to gain by worship, both in appeasement and also a personal sense of connection to deity.
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Blue Jay, posted 05-19-2008 6:20 PM Grizz has not replied
 Message 7 by Straggler, posted 05-19-2008 6:34 PM Grizz has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5501 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 8 of 64 (467138)
05-19-2008 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Straggler
05-19-2008 6:34 PM


Re: Experience?
To me, this is good evidence that He/She/It/Whatever did not make the world and us for His/Her/Its/Whatever's benefit, and that any religion or system of worship that is based upon this must postulate limits to God or its own falsehood (this is in accord with what you're suggesting).
But the original question as posed is, "why does God need worship?"
I was pointing out that an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect being would not need anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Straggler, posted 05-19-2008 6:34 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Grizz, posted 05-19-2008 7:39 PM Grizz has not replied
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 05-21-2008 1:51 PM Grizz has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5501 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 9 of 64 (467139)
05-19-2008 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Straggler
05-19-2008 6:34 PM


Re: Experience?
Experience?
Does omniscience preclude the need for actual experience?
Is it the same to "know" everything as to have experienced everything?
If not, then it would seem that the missing piece of the jigsaw for an omnipotent, omniscient being would be to use their omnipotence and omniscience to go about becoming "omniexperient".
Just a thought.
If a being is entirely self-autonomous,perfect and infinite, on what basis would it 'need' or 'want' any experiences of the kind you are discussing? Amusement, boredom, loneliness, or just for want of something to do?
Thre are problems with proposing an infinite perfect being. If you are going to then assign anthropomorphic emotions to such an infinite and perfect being then it must follow that it is infinitely and perfectly happy and content. It would not need or desire to do anything but sit like a bump on a log, being infinitely happy and content with its existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Straggler, posted 05-19-2008 6:34 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5501 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 10 of 64 (467143)
05-19-2008 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Grizz
05-19-2008 7:01 PM


Re: Experience?
I see this as a non sequitur. This logic also supports the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An infinite, perfect, and autonomous being would contain within itself an infinite measure of deceit and perverseness.
I see your point, but it is suggested that the Judea-Christian God is incapable of being deceitful, perverse, or engaging in things like lying etc. This itself presents a problem for omnipotence but ,without a doubt, the reply would be that God can engage in such things but chooses not to. I was really speaking within the context of the Judea-Christian deity.
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Grizz, posted 05-19-2008 7:01 PM Grizz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Perdition, posted 05-19-2008 7:47 PM Grizz has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5501 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 12 of 64 (467147)
05-19-2008 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Perdition
05-19-2008 7:47 PM


Re: Experience?
The cliche question of whether God can create something that He can't lift, illustrates the inherent contradiction in an Omnipotent being. Adding the other infinite attributes only makes matters worse. The only way to try and worm around it is to say that the logic of this world doesn't need to transfer to the "spiritual realm" but I would guess an illogical or alogical God isn't something people want either.
I agree with your statement about omnipotence; however, most analytical philosophers in both camps consider the rock argument to be invalid. It would be similar to asking a mathematician who claimed to be all-knowing and all-powerful to create a set containing elements that are not part of the set. Or you can pose the question: "Can an omnipotent God cause himself to have never existed?" If something already exists, it cannot be said to have never existed.
Most philosophers see such arguments as an invalid use of categories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Perdition, posted 05-19-2008 7:47 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Perdition, posted 05-19-2008 9:56 PM Grizz has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5501 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 16 of 64 (467209)
05-20-2008 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Perdition
05-19-2008 9:56 PM


Re: Experience?
That could be. But when you start saying things like "can do ANYTHING," it begs the question of whether you actually mean "can do anything logically possible," or "can do anything whether its logical or not." I don't see the comparison between a god making something and then not being able to lift it, or destroy it, or whatever with it, and a mathematician trying to make a set that contains numbers that aren't part of the set. The second is definitionally impossible, the first isn't. Can I make something I can't lift? Yes. Does that mean I have an "ability" that God doesn't?
It depends on who is defining omnipotence and whether the defintion includes actions that are non-sensical or logically impossible... i.e. "Can an Omnipotent being make itself exist and not exist at the same time?" Most theologians will define Omnipotence as '... anything that is logically possible.'
Now, if one wanted an example of an omnipotent being doing something that doesn't make any logical sense, one just needs to look at creation --6,000 years ago an omnipotent being created man from the dust with an appendix and a birth canal too small.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Perdition, posted 05-19-2008 9:56 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by iano, posted 05-20-2008 9:02 AM Grizz has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5501 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 24 of 64 (467466)
05-21-2008 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Blue Jay
05-21-2008 1:51 PM


Re: Experience?
And, yes, this is different from a lot of mainstream Judeo-Christian beliefs, but it is based upon much of the same information, and is attributed to the same God.
So, I believe very strongly that the mainstream Christian view of God's personality (which was described well by Larni in message #4) is not correct.
Hi Bluejay. As always, it is nice to read your well-reasoned posts. Sorry about the reply button mix-up.
Let me just give you an idea of where I am coming from:
The fact that people ask questions such as ,"Why does God need to be worshipped?" reminds me why I am an agnostic. Most people base their belief or disbelief in the existence of a God on their metaphysical presuppositions about the nature of reality. To be quite honest, I really haven't entirely dismissed the idea that it is possible or even plausible that there exists a transcendental cause for the existence of the corporeal world. The more I have thought about it, however, the more I realize that, with the exception of deism, none of the claims being made about the nature of such a 'cause' really offer much in the way of internal consistency. I find the theistic idea of a personal deity rather disjointed and it seems to be more of a wish than an inference.
Many properties theologians attribute to such a personal deity often don't jive with other attributes and are often at odds with plain old-fashioned common sense and/or empirical knowledge. An omnipotent deity concerned with human affairs who also desires that Mankind come to understand this divine relationship surely could have done a much better job at revealing information. It is absurd to think that the same transcendental deity whose omnipotent mind cooked up the laws of Physics and the complexities that resulted could fail so badly when it comes to revealing timely, precise, and relevant information. The information that we are told arrived to us through divine revelation is often disjointed, ambiguous, and is relayed with all the sophistication of a Children's bedtime story. Is it realistic to conclude that this information came from the same divine mind that authored Maxwell's Equations?
No disrespect or offense intended, but in the case of Mormonism, it is just as absurd, in my opinion, to think that such a personal deity would leave mankind hanging by waiting thousands of years to reveal the 'real' story to a 19th century inhabitant of upstate New York.
The stories people tell about God and pass off as divine revelation, the often ambiguous nature of this revelation, and the existence of so many differing views and opinions on it's meaning does more harm to the validity of these particular world views than any other argument even the most militant of atheists could put forward. Surely, an omnipotent and personal God could have done much better than this. People like to argue back and forth about the existence of a God, but it is the nature of the stories we tell about deity that I find more revealing and a bit more troubling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 05-21-2008 1:51 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 05-21-2008 7:56 PM Grizz has replied
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 05-22-2008 12:52 AM Grizz has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5501 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 26 of 64 (467491)
05-21-2008 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by iano
05-21-2008 7:56 PM


Re: Experience?
Fail so badly (and absurdly) as he did when he created ...
Grizz writes:
a birth canal too small
Which only goes to show that absurdity resides in the mind of the beholder. "I don't get it therefore it's absurd" (translated as: "I'm god")
What is even more absurd is the fact that some adults cannot manage to figure out why someone would possibly see as absurd those conclusions about the world that have been generated by taking at face value certain literary tales that have the level of information content one would expect to find in a child's bedtime story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 05-21-2008 7:56 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by iano, posted 05-22-2008 4:18 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5501 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 47 of 64 (467727)
05-23-2008 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blue Jay
05-22-2008 12:52 AM


Re: Experience?
I portray myself here on EvC as a devout Mormon (and I generally am), but I inevitably have my own concerns about my religion (including many of the ones you've brought up here), which often puts me at odds with my fellow Mormons and makes my mother condemn my actions sometimes.
I can definitely relate. It can be difficult to relate to family members on the subject of religion if you come from a Conservative background and hold any views that fall outside the norm. In my case, I come from a very conservative Catholic family and also have a sister who converted to fundamentalism. She is the most vocal and is the most likely to give you an earful when bringing up the subject of religion. I find the best way to avoid conflict is to politely opt-out of discussions where conflict will likely arise. I also realize that beliefs are such an integral and important part of their lives that anything I would offer would not do anything but create arguments. I simply don't discuss religion with family members.
Personally, I never really found much meaning in religion, probably because I never connected with it emotionally. I could easily rationalize the existence of God as described to me by Catholicism, but the whole affair never meant much of anything to me on a personal level.
On this particular subject of worship:
Worship plays such a large role in any religious system because it is fundamental to maintaining the emotional attachment one has with the belief system and it also serves as a mean of social stability. Personal worship in the form of prayer or meditation is what keeps the individual connected to the sense of the divine but it is communal worship that I believe serves the purpose of ensuring the survival of the group. In my opinion, communal worship is necessary for survival in that it keeps people from straying too far from the fray -- the more one strays from the community, the more you are likely to start questioning the beliefs and the easier it becomes to reject them when confronted intellectually.
I think a religious believer is motivated to worship for the same reason a scientist is motivated to uncover the mysteries of the Universe. This is where I would refer to the Philosopher Hume's observation that "Reason has ever motivated a man to do anything." We are not really rational animals, we are animals who also possess the uncanny ability to reason. These two definitions may seem like the same thing but they are not. Like any animal, we are creatures of instinct, emotion, and desire. Every single one of our actions are motivated by one of these impulses; reason is simply the tool that helps us navigate our way around and helps make the choice that will ring about the most positive results.
It is the anxiety that comes with not knowing that creates curiosity. The resulting desire to understand is what motivates us to use our reason to solve the mysteries of our existence. As thinking beings contemplating the immensity of the universe and our apparent insignificant place in it, we also have the need to connect to something greater than ourselves and derive our meaning and purpose from it. A religious individual will fulfill this emotional desire inside a cathedral; a scientist will fulfill this desire by devoting their lives to uncovering the secrets of nature and finding fulfillment in contemplating what we often hear scientists describe as 'the harmony and beauty of the natural world'.
We need to keep in mind that, as children, we weren't given the option of what to believe or if to believe anything at all; we were forced to believe. Later on in life and in adulthood, for those who stick around, worship serves the purpose of reinforcement in the face of doubt. It is a time when everyone comes together and feeds off of the group dynamic. We see these displays, for example, at Christian worship services where participants singe praises and hymns with hands raised and bodies swaying. Someone is overcome with emotion and starts crying then everyone else joins in. I am not poking fun at anyone, I am just pointing out that worship can be a very emotional experience for many people of all faiths and the power of the experience translates to a reinforcement of the validity of the belief system.
The a-rational side to our existence is very much a part of what we are and is quite capable of overpowering our rational side. If we want to really have a stab at truth, we cannot appeal to our a-rational side. If we had our emotions and instincts removed from our constitution and used our reason to examine our phobias, insecurities, and beliefs and then looked at how these all influenced our actions and perceptions of the world, we might all have a collective chuckle. We might hear someone say, "I was so silly to be afraid of the dark" or, "I cant believe I actually concluded we were made of an immaterial and immortal soul that was somehow fused with our material bodies." We are not Mr Spock caricatures, however, nor should we want to be. What is life without the wonder and joy that comes from our emotions and desires? We just need to keep in mind that when we are seeking to address the profound questions most of us have on our minds, we should not be listening to our emotions and desires.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 05-22-2008 12:52 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 05-23-2008 4:58 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024