[Serious] If I met Him...

[John 6IX Breezy]

I've already stated my views to your questions. I'll wait for Five to respond now.

[zwanzig]

Why do you think you have this either/or approach? You seem to want the term God to describe something unrealistic, otherwise anything that begins to sound realistic you will no longer give the label of God to.

In my observations, scripture uses many different labels for "that being" of which God is just one. For example, Rock, Father, Healer, Shepherd, Potter, King, etc. Each label carries with it some particular aspect that describes him, without necessarily confining him to it (God isn't a literal rock). In many ways the term God probably serves the same function. It is as artificial as the term king, and yet it helps us understand his nature in some way. So personally, calling that being an extraterrestrial is acceptable insofar as that term is compatible with the biblical description.

As far as worship is concerned. My understanding is that it is offered because of what he did (creator, redeemer), not necessarily because of who he is (divine being).

Why call it/him God, then? If it could just be an extraterrestrial, then we don't need to elevate it to this status that implies divinity. If it is a real world, super-powered being, or using technology too advanced for our understanding, it isn't a God. I am wondering what your standard for divinity is, if you'll indulge me. I know there's been some discussion going on in this thread; I apologize, I'm still reading and catching up.

That is an interesting point. I reject the "redeemer" part because I don't find that compelling at all. God created a set of rules that he knew we couldn't obey without him doing something to help us. So he kills himself on the altar and now we owe him? Or do you believe as the Mormons do, that God is a being like man, beholden to a set of universal laws and that he didn't create sin when he created the universe? It's either he foresaw our flawed nature and now it's extortion or he is bound by laws greater than him. In which case...I am not going to worship somebody stuck in the same wheel as me. You can either absolve me of everything with a wave of your hand, or you can't. There is something sinister and manipulative in the story of Christ that points to a cruel being, not a redeeming one. And as others stated earlier in the thread and I agree; I will rebel and resent such a being, if it exists at all.

Creator is difficult though. Because I agree, that is something worship worthy. Or at least owed reverence. However I think it ties back to proving he exists again and describing the parameters of that creation. How do I know he even wants to be worshipped or not? For all I know, this being vomitted me out after a drunk frat party in their version of reality. He wandered off and doesn't even realize I am here. Like, the continued relationship type thing. You just drop me and leave me? I have not had contact with such a being to truly know that my creation had a purpose. You know?

---

What? Do you need to speak directly to members here in the forum to confirm they're not disguised robots.. for example?

As far as I know, it's not mentioned anywhere in any religious text that the Abrahamic god needs our worship. It's certainly not the case in Islam. The word need is a figment of your imagination, it's not in the article of faith of any serious religious person. If it were the case, if an all powerful deity somewhat needs every human being to worship it i.e. depends on the act of worship to sustain itself / some properties of itself, then it could do that in a sleight of hand by making us worshippers by default, and negate free will, in which case you wouldn't have enough freedom to post this thread . not really difficult for a deity, huh ?

It's actually the other way around. We need to worship god. If we don't, we'll worship something inferior to god, be it an idol, an ideology, an addictive habit, possessions, an object of affection, etc. The Qur'an describes anyone who -knowingly- rejects worshipping god as someone who worships his own desires.

You might be interested in reading this thread of mine. I kind of answered this question from my own POV.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-61984.html
Sheers

As stated before, I understand I am biased and I am interested in this as a utilitarian chat. So, true in your points about me being possibly illogical. If you're willing to continue just for the sake of engagement of the ideas, I'd appreciate it. I like having my own thoughts drawn out and trying to articulate what exactly I'm thinking, so, I'm grateful to have your response to stretch my thought process this way.

Well, that's the thing. I AM speaking to members of the forum here. Much more than God ever has. I think I am allowed to set a higher standard of belief in something that claims to hold such power over existence itself. And of course, if a being showed themself to me and proved their power...I would want to get confirmation of its reality from others, such as my family or even random people. Because my first thought would be that I had lost my mind.

Even then though, I am trying to think of something they could do to prove Godhood. Possibly bringing something into or out of existence. But then there's the whole, elevated technology thing. If they could physically talk to me, it would always be in the back of my mind that they are on the same plane as me, and thus anything they did, I'd wonder if it weren't technology that I don't have access to, or a simulation(wherein God is actually just another operator in this simulation like myself but with admin access) or hypnosis, or weather changes I don't understand, etc.

That feels like a bad faith twisting of my words. Need as opposed to say demands? Because it is one of the 10 commandments, to have no other idols before him. And Christ said he was the way to salvation, to follow him and he follows his father. So, there is a demand for my worship and obedience. Sorry if that got mixed up.

As for needing to worship God...that feels really condescending towards humanity. I mean, sure, people have their vices and obsessions, their passions. But then we're getting into whether or not it is better to live life restricted by such rules, if some people are more capable than others of being responsible for themselves and not going off the deep end for food, drink, and money. And we're getting into the nitty gritty of what it actually means to be human. Is suffering a part of it? Is it inherently bad for people to fall down? I don't know... I tend to think it is better for people to experience and make choices based on the experiences they wish to have or don't have and to find accountability and motivation within themselves, rather than be restricted, to be compelled to behave a certain way. Barring societal rules that allow us to live together in harmony and thrive together as communities and a species, I don't see the benefit in giving over agency to some invisible being or power. I don't see how that makes you a better person or human.

I'll give your link a look! Thank you for providing it.

[Angrboda]

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Genesis 1:27

[zwanzig]

I read "Genesis" and automatically think "some guy said God says..." It's why I am at this point of needing personal proof from deity itself.

[The Grand Nudger]

If we read the OT for what it is, a religion of state, that requirement seems out of place.

[zwanzig]

If we read the OT for what it is, a religion of state, that requirement seems out of place.

I come from a Christian themed cult where I had to rely on the word of other men to tell me what God says and it turned out to be a puppet show with the guy's sleeve just visible outside of the God-puppet's butt. So, I just meant, quoting scripture, any scripture, is a "God told me to tell you" thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's exactly how much of the ot was written, too.

God told me to tell you guys to stop fucking up or king so and so is going to bring you down. -says a prophet

He told you so - says the historian.

Proceeding through the story - there's a level of familiarity with the roll of kings assumed by the narrative of the audience, and the OT is a running list of grievances that one part of a state had with another part, that one part of a culture had with another part - in which each is constantly predicting the others demise at the hands of so and so as divine retribution against gods laws. Laws conceived of as the best laws. Against gods traditions. Traditions conceived of as the best traditions. The failure to uphold the terms of gods covenant are interchangeable with good governance and, to a post diaspora world, explained their current predicament by reference to an idealized past and the failures of their society in general and leaders in particular.

FWIW, we can absolutely believe that some social commentator saw armies on the horizon and knew that the other guy was fucked, and insomuch as the events that one side or another predicted ended up coming to pass that would lend credibility to their pov, including their notions of the cause of the events. Things to be avoided in future.

[John 6IX Breezy]

1. Why call it/him God, then? If it could just be an extraterrestrial, then we don't need to elevate it to this status that implies divinity. If it is a real world, super-powered being, or using technology too advanced for our understanding, it isn't a God.

2. I am wondering what your standard for divinity is, if you'll indulge me. I know there's been some discussion going on in this thread; I apologize, I'm still reading and catching up.

3. Creator is difficult though. Because I agree, that is something worship worthy. Or at least owed reverence. However I think it ties back to proving he exists again and describing the parameters of that creation. How do I know he even wants to be worshipped or not? 

1. From what I've observed, the Bible never describes what the word "God" means. Instead it seems to use it to describe a concept people were already familiar with. It borrows a template that people understand, much like Shepherd, without necessarily constricting him to it. Divine seems to mean anything "proceeding from God;" so the term appears rather synonymous with God.

2. As for my standards, I tend to reject the philosophical omnis- (omnipotence, etc.). At least insofar as they describe infinity in any way. I do so for two reasons: First, because our brains are not equipped to comprehend infinity; we make a mess of it. There's a large number of philosophical paradoxes, such as Zeno's arrow, which at the root of them seem to struggle with infinity. Secondly, because our brains are not constrained to reality. We can imagine ourselves walking through walls and other seeming impossibilities. So when you use terms like omnipotence, people expect God to create a square circle otherwise he doesn't exist. Or they want him to create a rock so heavy that he can't move, otherwise he's not omnipotent. To me these are not failures of God but failures of our mind to adhere to reality. Rather than infinite I prefer the term ultimate. Ultimate constrains our minds to the finite and makes it manageable. We can comprehend what it means for God to be the most powerful, even if the actual boundaries of that power are far beyond comprehension. 

3. I think at the root of your issues is worship. And to be fair, there is a discussion to be had about what the term means. In Christianity, we don't tend to worship God is any specific or recognizable way. Worship seems to occur indirectly through other activities, like prayer, reverence, church attendance, many if which are not obligatory.

[zwanzig]

@John 6IX Breezy

Thank you for defining what these terms mean to you. It adds some clarity to where you're coming from and where we diverge. It's an odd point I get to when I try to hammer down my thoughts and whether I agree or disagree on "God is not omni- ; he's just the most powerful because that's what we can comprehend." I'm not going to argue for God to do the impossible like making a square circle(what?).

I guess this is the contradiction that I fully acknowledge within my processes and I don't expect it's a knot anyone can untie or correct because it keeps looping around for me.

• I define God as a creator being with a mastery and control over reality and matter to the point where everything could be stopped or changed by its will.
• I will not accept a lesser definition of God because of the higher status inherent in "God". If it's not powerful enough to do the omni- stuff(knowing my thoughts, knowing my future, able to heal or undo me at a wave) then it's just a tiger. A tiger with fangs that seem impossible or super powered but still beholden to the same laws of reality that I am. An alien that created Adam in a test tube and dropped his essence here is not a God. A being that can read my mind or see my future but cannot bend reality is not God.
• Such a powerful being is the only thing worthy of worship. And the Bible outlines several points where worship(even an acknowledgement of his existence through prayer or faith) is commanded of me, humanity.
• I need proof. Physical, tangible, reproducable, witnessed proof.
• There is a personalized element to proving its existence. If I can touch it, it loses the awe it once contained. And the demand of worship while also bowing to my need for proof clashes. It is a submissive gesture to placate me with an illustration. I lose a few notches of respect for something so powerful lowering themselves to entertain my, admitted, fickle needs.
• If it remains unproven because I am small and my tiny brain demands things I don't even want, then I assume worship, even passive acknowledgement of its existence is not important to it and thus not required of me.
• If it is so large and awesome that it doesn't even acknowledge me and I can't comprehend it, then what does faith or belief matter?

See? I get contact and it negates God and I see it only as a petty being that NEEDS me for some reason. Who's master of who, here? But without it, I'm not going to be gaslit by its messengers(priests, preachers, missionaries, etc.) into putting time and energy into a one-sided relationship where half the time it lets me suffer for my own good. What worth is a friend in God, really? But if nothing is proven then nothing can be demanded of me; sorry, God's just not trying hard enough.

It loops.

[R00tKiT]

Well, that's the thing. I AM speaking to members of the forum here. Much more than God ever has.

You're not, you're writing to them and they write back. Clearly this was enough for you to conclude they are human beings. Strictly speaking, the latter conclusion is illogical, but we have very good reasons to support it rather than overthink about such a trivial matter.
The gist of it is that that there is no proof for anything -aside from the deductions we do in math classrooms-. We only have good reasons and plausible analogies to say there are other minds than ourselves', an external world, etc.

Even then though, I am trying to think of something they could do to prove Godhood. Possibly bringing something into or out of existence. But then there's the whole, elevated technology thing. If they could physically talk to me, it would always be in the back of my mind that they are on the same plane as me, and thus anything they did, I'd wonder if it weren't technology that I don't have access to, or a simulation(wherein God is actually just another operator in this simulation like myself but with admin access) or hypnosis, or weather changes I don't understand, etc.

The hypothesis of an extremely advanced technology doesn't solve the problem of infinite regress. If it has the properties of a deity, then you can just substiute the term "advanced technology" with the term "god", If it doesn't, then there is a more powerful cause behind this slightly less powerful technology. And we will keep going into the regress.
If we consider a chain of actual causes -i.e. real things outside our mind, and not numbers for example-, then infinite regresscannot occur, since this universe, us, is an element of this causal chain. Clearly it cannot be preceded by an infinite number of causes.

As for needing to worship God...that feels really condescending towards humanity. I mean, sure, people have their vices and obsessions, their passions.

I know. There is no shortage of people, however, whose passions literally destroyed them. Plenty of famous singers/actors couldn't handle the psychological burden of such careers, a handful of them committed suicide.
Let's take the example of Robet James Fischer, one of the greatest chess players of all time. If you read his biography, especially the part regarding his decline after losing the world champion title, you can say chess destroyed him, he literally became mentally ill. His biological father turned to be a theoretical physicist, clearly Robert Fischer was exceptionally gifted and could've had a much more respectable career in academia, he instead chose to push wood at the highest level just to follow his passion.
I read an article some years ago about the advice "Follow your passion" being the worst advice ever. Passion is for most people another word for what gives you dopamine rush when you start doing it, regardless of the long term consequences of pursuing it. 

But then we're getting into whether or not it is better to live life restricted by such rules, if some people are more capable than others of being responsible for themselves and not going off the deep end for food, drink, and money. And we're getting into the nitty gritty of what it actually means to be human. Is suffering a part of it? Is it inherently bad for people to fall down? I don't know... I tend to think it is better for people to experience and make choices based on the experiences they wish to have or don't have and to find accountability and motivation within themselves, rather than be restricted, to be compelled to behave a certain way. Barring societal rules that allow us to live together in harmony and thrive together as communities and a species, I don't see the benefit in giving over agency to some invisible being or power. I don't see how that makes you a better person or human.

That's a respectable point of view. However, I think that people, being in essence irrational beings, need to be told what to do on certain things. The purpose of life is one of them.