Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's what I don't get.  This god, being physical, is subject to all the laws of existence.  He's no less a slave than I am.  So why worship?

I never really understood worship even if we assume a god wasn't as much of a slave to these forces, or was super powerful, or whatever.  I've met people in my life that were incredibly free from my point of view.  Very powerful people too.  I think the closest I come to worship is probably my kids...and they're neither free nor powerful, lol.

[Ravenshire]

Incredulity seems to do a lot of work for your worldview.  Is that wise?

Incredulity and ignorance make up his world view.

[Ravenshire]

Distortion of spaceTime? That's gibberish. It's wonderful that such doctrines facilitate applied science, but I don't have to take them as accurate literal descriptions of the universe. And I cannot accept gibberish as literal truth because I don't understand what I am being asked to accept.

If you really believe yourself to understand all these concepts, I can only say, "Enjoy your delusion."

You're home schooled, aren't you?

[Jal]

Because there is only one plausibly fair definition of merit/ meriting  praise, as I keep saying.

Plausibly isn't doing any work there.  I've already pointed out how your standard is wrong.  There must be some corruption in your system to endorse such an immoral code.

You shall know them by their fruits.  Why should I listen to what you say when you've just indicted yourself?

Do what I tell you? Your only obligation is to your conscience.

But not getting you regarding merit. Tell me your alternative definition?

[Jal]

we could probably come up with all sorts of other conditions where we’re not judging the deed itself but other things connected to it.  

Not sure what you mean by "deed". By that term I was just using loose language for the def of merit.

I do t see how adding or subtracting a god changes anything…or belongs in the definition at all.  Consider the same setup but no one ever knows.  Is a decent act less decent if it’s not known or judged by anyone, god or otherwise?

Adding a god doesn't change the def of merit. But I'm pretty sure He exists, and I'm just telling you my theory on His moral criteria.

[Nay_Sayer]

What would that apparent insanity be?

ETA:

https://youtu.be/qhXjcZdk5QQ?is=StNFlIddtpLBEx8_

Nice video.

 For example it strikes me as an insane theory (inconceivable) that brute particles suddenly become self-aware via cerebral organization. 

Clearly I am not alone here. This concern is the whole reason for panpsychism.

So if I'm getting you correctly, You believe in an innumerable amount of thinking quarks. 

Consciousness isn't a majik spark that has to be built in, It's a biological adaptation. I know it seems special because we consider ourselves special (Humans have a bit of an ego),  but it doesn't make it so.

[Jal]

Let me put it in some different shoes.  Let's suppose I'm weak-willed.  I decide to have an abortion even though I know it's wrong.  I just can't live with the thought of having to give birth to and raise a baby.  I'm weak-willed.  God decides that being weak-willed isn't enough of a handicap to explain my actions, given how horribly wrong they were.  God knows how horribly wrong they were, but I didn't fully comprehend that.  God decides to punish me for being willfully evil.  I take him to court and point out that I have different values than God does.  God wants to punish me according to God's values, but I argue I shouldn't be punished according to my values.  Whose values should my punishment be decided by, mine or God's?  If you say God, it sounds like God is just rigging the dice in his favor.  He literally came from essentially nothing (his original matter), why should we trust him to set standards for us?  Why trust God at all, except as a blind choice?

Why are we obligated to God? Not sure I can be fully candid here, due to forum rules. I'll try to tread lightly.

General Revelation (Rom 1:18 to 32) suggests that God has stamped every conscience with a primordial awareness, basically at least a subsconscious level of awareness, that He exists. Hence we all have an obligation to try to seek out this particular picture/vision of God, faint as it may be.  (It's like you THOUGHT you heard your Dad calling your name, you're not sure, but you should probably try to go check, in case he needs your help).

The Arminian school of Christian thinkers claims that anyone CAN seek out this God.
The Calvinist school says, "Man is too corrupt since Adam, he will live in denial about this God unless the Holy Spirit reaches out to soften his heart".

Even the Arminians recognize that Christians should ask the Holy Spirit to invade that guy's life. 

While I reject most Calvinist points, but on this point I 'm not sure where to stand. It's one of the many issues where the Bible seems unclear.

In either case, you have an obligation to God imprinted upon your conscience, according to Rom 1:18 to 32.

[Jal]

Nice video.

 For example it strikes me as an insane theory (inconceivable) that brute particles suddenly become self-aware via cerebral organization. 

Clearly I am not alone here. This concern is the whole reason for panpsychism.

So if I'm getting you correctly, You believe in an innumerable amount of thinking quarks. 

Consciousness isn't a majik spark that has to be built in, It's a biological adaptation. I know it seems special because we consider ourselves special (Humans have a bit of an ego),  but it doesn't make it so.

Thinking quarks? Most are neglibly sentient.

[Ravenshire]

Most are neglibly sentient.

Kinda like you?

[Nay_Sayer]

No.

Quarks are classified strictly as fundamental, point-like elementary particles with properties like mass, charge, and spin.