Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What type of being deserves the name "God"?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 8:57:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To me, a being would actually have to be worthy of human worship and not be a categorical human himself (maybe an immaterial person of some sorts). A being who not just did something great, but did something great for us humans consciously. This being would also have to be extremely loving to be deserving of human worship, because a malevolent being could receive our worship out of fear, but he wouldn't be deserving of human worship. The being would also have to be extremely powerful to deserve human worship, because if this being had the same power as us, then I don't see how he would deserve worship as a God.

So my question to theists would be, would it make sense to say that if a being is not extremely good and extremely powerful, then we are not talking about a being worthy or worship. And thus, not talking about "God"?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 10:08:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 8:57:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, a being would actually have to be worthy of human worship

So all deists, such as myself, do not believe in God? What is this based on? Why can't evil or non-personal Gods exist? BS...

and not be a categorical human himself (maybe an immaterial person of some sorts).

Well yes. I agree that humans can't be God. The moment that happened, they wouldn't fit the definition of human anymore.

A being who not just did something great, but did something great for us humans consciously.

Not sure what you mean by great.

This being would also have to be extremely loving to be deserving of human worship, because a malevolent being could receive our worship out of fear, but he wouldn't be deserving of human worship.

I agree that rational worship is different to deserved worship, but I still don't get why God should be deserved of worship.

The being would also have to be extremely powerful to deserve human worship, because if this being had the same power as us, then I don't see how he would deserve worship as a God.

God must be powerful I agree but I don't know why you focus so much on the worship part.

So my question to theists would be, would it make sense to say that if a being is not extremely good and extremely powerful, then we are not talking about a being worthy or worship. And thus, not talking about "God"?

The "extremely good" part is bull sh!t, and so is whether he is worthy of worship.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 10:12:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 10:08:23 PM, phantom wrote:

Well yes. I agree that humans can't be God. The moment that happened, they wouldn't fit the definition of human anymore.

Why can't humans be Gods?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 10:12:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm sure you've all read it before but eh:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

~Epicurus
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 10:14:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The concept of worship altogether is BS. There may or may not be a God,...but what does he gain from human idolization?

Worship is similar to the praise of human kings,...it doesn't sound like a command that would come from something transcendent like God. It sounds like something only humans would value.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 10:21:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 8:57:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, a being would actually have to be worthy of human worship and not be a categorical human himself (maybe an immaterial person of some sorts). A being who not just did something great, but did something great for us humans consciously. This being would also have to be extremely loving to be deserving of human worship, because a malevolent being could receive our worship out of fear, but he wouldn't be deserving of human worship. The being would also have to be extremely powerful to deserve human worship, because if this being had the same power as us, then I don't see how he would deserve worship as a God.

So my question to theists would be, would it make sense to say that if a being is not extremely good and extremely powerful, then we are not talking about a being worthy or worship. And thus, not talking about "God"?

Yeah, pretty much this.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 10:24:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 10:12:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm sure you've all read it before but eh:


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

~Epicurus

This is why I believe in Human Gods. Frankly, Human mind is one of the most powerful thing we have today. And it's definitely exists. +1 to human mind.

Humans have the power to become Gods if only we harness the power of mind. We should all just worship our brains.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 10:36:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Always an interesting question to me. This is true for two reasons:

1. Epistemic nihilism. At the heart of my arguments regarding the theism debate, I always maintain not only that we can't be certain about God's existence, but also that we are always in principle equally uncertain about what any of that entity's properties would be. So, with regard to the thread title, I haven't a clue. Ergo, agnosticism.

2. The second reason is that I've always been interested by one of the ontological arguments (I think that's what it is, I don't pay too much attention) and the footwork it does with the idea of a "maximally-great being". Even though here, too, there are concerns about knowing properties, just the notion of defining God as "maximally great being" has always been a bit murky to me. Rather than finding that there is a God defined by such and such parameters, it just defines a being that has to exist, then calls that God. It's sort of like defining God as "air", then saying "God exists". Analytically, it's true, but it's just building castles in the air. It no longer has anything to do, really, with the ordinary conception of God. There are ways you could put the two together (like defining traditional conceptions of God as the maximally great being), but it's basically just more vague definitional footwork--there doesn't appear to be necessary connection between the label "God" and the properties of the entity to whom, sans epistemic constraints, we would attribute that designator.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 10:54:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 10:12:00 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/2/2012 10:08:23 PM, phantom wrote:

Well yes. I agree that humans can't be God. The moment that happened, they wouldn't fit the definition of human anymore.

Why can't humans be Gods?

God is by necessity, greater in attributes than humans.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:02:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 10:54:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/2/2012 10:12:00 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/2/2012 10:08:23 PM, phantom wrote:

Well yes. I agree that humans can't be God. The moment that happened, they wouldn't fit the definition of human anymore.

Why can't humans be Gods?

God is by necessity, greater in attributes than humans.

Given that the 'attributes' in human are forever increasing, thanks to the technology- would that mean that the attributes in God are increasing proportionally?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:09:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:02:31 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/2/2012 10:54:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/2/2012 10:12:00 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/2/2012 10:08:23 PM, phantom wrote:

Well yes. I agree that humans can't be God. The moment that happened, they wouldn't fit the definition of human anymore.

Why can't humans be Gods?

God is by necessity, greater in attributes than humans.

Given that the 'attributes' in human are forever increasing, thanks to the technology- would that mean that the attributes in God are increasing proportionally?

Thousands of years ago, humans did not exist. However, creatures did exist that we evolved from. So why do we not call those creatures humans? Simple, they're completely different and don't match definitions. By the time we gain attributes great enough to be considered gods, we would be far evolved from anything close to resembling human beings.

And the answer to your last question is no, but I don't see any relevancy.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:22:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:09:45 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:02:31 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/2/2012 10:54:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/2/2012 10:12:00 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/2/2012 10:08:23 PM, phantom wrote:

Well yes. I agree that humans can't be God. The moment that happened, they wouldn't fit the definition of human anymore.

Why can't humans be Gods?

God is by necessity, greater in attributes than humans.

Given that the 'attributes' in human are forever increasing, thanks to the technology- would that mean that the attributes in God are increasing proportionally?

Thousands of years ago, humans did not exist. However, creatures did exist that we evolved from. So why do we not call those creatures humans? Simple, they're completely different and don't match definitions. By the time we gain attributes great enough to be considered gods, we would be far evolved from anything close to resembling human beings.

100s of years ago, we were mainly nomads, walking on the earth, killing and eating and mating. Yet today, we have so far surpassed ourselves, with the evolution of technology to the way it is, that we are almost lording over the planet. Does that mean we have ceased to be humans?

And the answer to your last question is no, but I don't see any relevancy.

When you say that god, by definition, is greater in attributes than humans, you are assuming than humans have some fixed attributes. Given that it is not true, the question obviously follows. Although you have somewhat answered it by accepting that humans do have the power to evolve into Gods.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 11:57:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 8:57:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, a being would actually have to be worthy of human worship and not be a categorical human himself (maybe an immaterial person of some sorts). A being who not just did something great, but did something great for us humans consciously. This being would also have to be extremely loving to be deserving of human worship, because a malevolent being could receive our worship out of fear, but he wouldn't be deserving of human worship. The being would also have to be extremely powerful to deserve human worship, because if this being had the same power as us, then I don't see how he would deserve worship as a God.

So my question to theists would be, would it make sense to say that if a being is not extremely good and extremely powerful, then we are not talking about a being worthy or worship. And thus, not talking about "God"?

I agree that God has to be worthy of worship. And I also agree for the reasons you said (powerful, good, ect)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:10:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:22:03 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:09:45 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:02:31 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/2/2012 10:54:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/2/2012 10:12:00 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/2/2012 10:08:23 PM, phantom wrote:

Well yes. I agree that humans can't be God. The moment that happened, they wouldn't fit the definition of human anymore.

Why can't humans be Gods?

God is by necessity, greater in attributes than humans.

Given that the 'attributes' in human are forever increasing, thanks to the technology- would that mean that the attributes in God are increasing proportionally?

Thousands of years ago, humans did not exist. However, creatures did exist that we evolved from. So why do we not call those creatures humans? Simple, they're completely different and don't match definitions. By the time we gain attributes great enough to be considered gods, we would be far evolved from anything close to resembling human beings.

100s of years ago, we were mainly nomads, walking on the earth, killing and eating and mating. Yet today, we have so far surpassed ourselves, with the evolution of technology to the way it is, that we are almost lording over the planet. Does that mean we have ceased to be humans?

How is this a response? No it does not mean that we cease to be human. It means that we are changing. No one would say that the change is enough to remove our status as human beings. However, many thousands of years from now, the change would be enough so that we would be clasified as a new species, and humans would be a lower species on the evolution chain.

And the answer to your last question is no, but I don't see any relevancy.

When you say that god, by definition, is greater in attributes than humans, you are assuming than humans have some fixed attributes. Given that it is not true, the question obviously follows. Although you have somewhat answered it by accepting that humans do have the power to evolve into Gods.

I never stated that humans could evolve into Gods, just that humans can't be Gods. But if humans can evolve into Gods than you have conceded my point. Humans ceased to be apes when they evolved from them, just as the human race would cease to be human when they evolved into being Gods. But of course, there would be a much much longer process than just one step from human to God.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:11:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/2/2012 11:57:29 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/2/2012 8:57:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, a being would actually have to be worthy of human worship and not be a categorical human himself (maybe an immaterial person of some sorts). A being who not just did something great, but did something great for us humans consciously. This being would also have to be extremely loving to be deserving of human worship, because a malevolent being could receive our worship out of fear, but he wouldn't be deserving of human worship. The being would also have to be extremely powerful to deserve human worship, because if this being had the same power as us, then I don't see how he would deserve worship as a God.

So my question to theists would be, would it make sense to say that if a being is not extremely good and extremely powerful, then we are not talking about a being worthy or worship. And thus, not talking about "God"?

I agree that God has to be worthy of worship. And I also agree for the reasons you said (powerful, good, ect)

Why?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:41:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 12:11:24 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:57:29 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/2/2012 8:57:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, a being would actually have to be worthy of human worship and not be a categorical human himself (maybe an immaterial person of some sorts). A being who not just did something great, but did something great for us humans consciously. This being would also have to be extremely loving to be deserving of human worship, because a malevolent being could receive our worship out of fear, but he wouldn't be deserving of human worship. The being would also have to be extremely powerful to deserve human worship, because if this being had the same power as us, then I don't see how he would deserve worship as a God.

So my question to theists would be, would it make sense to say that if a being is not extremely good and extremely powerful, then we are not talking about a being worthy or worship. And thus, not talking about "God"?

I agree that God has to be worthy of worship. And I also agree for the reasons you said (powerful, good, ect)

Why?

Because I believe it is most likely that God is a maximally great being. And if true, then by definition he is worthy of worship.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:42:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 12:10:17 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:22:03 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:09:45 PM, phantom wrote:


Thousands of years ago, humans did not exist. However, creatures did exist that we evolved from. So why do we not call those creatures humans? Simple, they're completely different and don't match definitions. By the time we gain attributes great enough to be considered gods, we would be far evolved from anything close to resembling human beings.

100s of years ago, we were mainly nomads, walking on the earth, killing and eating and mating. Yet today, we have so far surpassed ourselves, with the evolution of technology to the way it is, that we are almost lording over the planet. Does that mean we have ceased to be humans?

How is this a response? No it does not mean that we cease to be human. It means that we are changing. No one would say that the change is enough to remove our status as human beings. However, many thousands of years from now, the change would be enough so that we would be clasified as a new species, and humans would be a lower species on the evolution chain.

This is an answer because a species evolves into another only when there is a significant change in its physical appearance. Significant enough to not being able to produce fertile offsprings after mating with each other. Improvement of mental capacities has nothing to do with evolution.

Talking about humans evolving into God based on purely technological improvements is useless.


And the answer to your last question is no, but I don't see any relevancy.

When you say that god, by definition, is greater in attributes than humans, you are assuming than humans have some fixed attributes. Given that it is not true, the question obviously follows. Although you have somewhat answered it by accepting that humans do have the power to evolve into Gods.

I never stated that humans could evolve into Gods, just that humans can't be Gods. But if humans can evolve into Gods than you have conceded my point. Humans ceased to be apes when they evolved from them, just as the human race would cease to be human when they evolved into being Gods. But of course, there would be a much much longer process than just one step from human to God.

Humans can acquire the powers associated with being God. Evolution has nothing to do with this.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:43:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Because I believe it is most likely that God is a maximally great being. And if true, then by definition he is worthy of worship.

Why would a maximally great being want to be worshipped? On its surface it seems a little egotistical and possibly a sign of insecurity.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:48:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 12:41:28 AM, stubs wrote:
At 7/3/2012 12:11:24 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:57:29 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/2/2012 8:57:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To me, a being would actually have to be worthy of human worship and not be a categorical human himself (maybe an immaterial person of some sorts). A being who not just did something great, but did something great for us humans consciously. This being would also have to be extremely loving to be deserving of human worship, because a malevolent being could receive our worship out of fear, but he wouldn't be deserving of human worship. The being would also have to be extremely powerful to deserve human worship, because if this being had the same power as us, then I don't see how he would deserve worship as a God.

So my question to theists would be, would it make sense to say that if a being is not extremely good and extremely powerful, then we are not talking about a being worthy or worship. And thus, not talking about "God"?

I agree that God has to be worthy of worship. And I also agree for the reasons you said (powerful, good, ect)

Why?

Because I believe it is most likely that God is a maximally great being. And if true, then by definition he is worthy of worship.

Oh, you're following modal logic lines I think. Still though, I notice this doesn't really answer the question. Sure, you believe that God is worthy of worship because you believe he is maximally great, but that doesn't mean a being that is not worthy of worship cannot be defined of as God. Or a being that is not maximally great. Why does God have to possess maximal greatness in order to be God? A being not of maximal greatness can still deserve the name God.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:55:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 12:42:40 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/3/2012 12:10:17 AM, phantom wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:22:03 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/2/2012 11:09:45 PM, phantom wrote:


Thousands of years ago, humans did not exist. However, creatures did exist that we evolved from. So why do we not call those creatures humans? Simple, they're completely different and don't match definitions. By the time we gain attributes great enough to be considered gods, we would be far evolved from anything close to resembling human beings.

100s of years ago, we were mainly nomads, walking on the earth, killing and eating and mating. Yet today, we have so far surpassed ourselves, with the evolution of technology to the way it is, that we are almost lording over the planet. Does that mean we have ceased to be humans?

How is this a response? No it does not mean that we cease to be human. It means that we are changing. No one would say that the change is enough to remove our status as human beings. However, many thousands of years from now, the change would be enough so that we would be clasified as a new species, and humans would be a lower species on the evolution chain.

This is an answer because a species evolves into another only when there is a significant change in its physical appearance. Significant enough to not being able to produce fertile offsprings after mating with each other. Improvement of mental capacities has nothing to do with evolution.


Talking about humans evolving into God based on purely technological improvements is useless.

Where does your basis rest in the assertion that technology can make us into Gods?

And the answer to your last question is no, but I don't see any relevancy.

When you say that god, by definition, is greater in attributes than humans, you are assuming than humans have some fixed attributes. Given that it is not true, the question obviously follows. Although you have somewhat answered it by accepting that humans do have the power to evolve into Gods.

I never stated that humans could evolve into Gods, just that humans can't be Gods. But if humans can evolve into Gods than you have conceded my point. Humans ceased to be apes when they evolved from them, just as the human race would cease to be human when they evolved into being Gods. But of course, there would be a much much longer process than just one step from human to God.

Humans can acquire the powers associated with being God. Evolution has nothing to do with this.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 1:01:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 12:55:08 AM, phantom wrote:


Where does your basis rest in the assertion that technology can make us into Gods?

If we look at attributes we relate to God, we are striving pretty exponentially towards achieving them. Flying? airplanes. Actual flying? Personal rocket belt Time travel? Under works. Cloning? Already achieved. What are the attributes YOU relate with god that you think humans can't achieve.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 1:23:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 1:01:19 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/3/2012 12:55:08 AM, phantom wrote:


Where does your basis rest in the assertion that technology can make us into Gods?

If we look at attributes we relate to God, we are striving pretty exponentially towards achieving them. Flying? airplanes. Actual flying? Personal rocket belt Time travel? Under works. Cloning? Already achieved. What are the attributes YOU relate with god that you think humans can't achieve.

Know all, Do all, perfectly.
TheAsylum
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 1:30:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 1:23:02 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 7/3/2012 1:01:19 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/3/2012 12:55:08 AM, phantom wrote:


Where does your basis rest in the assertion that technology can make us into Gods?

If we look at attributes we relate to God, we are striving pretty exponentially towards achieving them. Flying? airplanes. Actual flying? Personal rocket belt Time travel? Under works. Cloning? Already achieved. What are the attributes YOU relate with god that you think humans can't achieve.

Know all, Do all, perfectly.

See, that's all encompassing. I can rattle off the things we can know and do, the burden is on you. What specifically cannot we not know?

Know all: What can't we know today? Media, Intelligence, internet, plus there are encouraging signs of telepathy perfection, we are on the trail.

Do all perfectly: That's just subjective. However, we are able to do a lot of things our ancestors won't even have thought possible, flying, diving, jumping off the airplanes (and surviving), blah blah blah.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 10:27:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 1:01:19 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/3/2012 12:55:08 AM, phantom wrote:


Where does your basis rest in the assertion that technology can make us into Gods?

If we look at attributes we relate to God, we are striving pretty exponentially towards achieving them. Flying? airplanes. Actual flying? Personal rocket belt Time travel? Under works. Cloning? Already achieved. What are the attributes YOU relate with god that you think humans can't achieve.

I disagree. Using tools to perform abilities is different to actually having those abilities. Batman is able to perform many actions of super-heros but he is not a super-hero for the simple reason that he uses technology in order to perform them.

I also disagree that technology could get us that far. It is an interesting point, but God is supernatural. Many people say omniscient. I wouldn't say he has to omniscient but very knowing. Much more powerful than we could be. The ability to cause the universe and create life. I could go on.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 10:39:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What type of being deserves the name "God"?

YHWH does!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 10:54:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"How come we can accept God becoming man to save man, but we can never seem to accept man becoming God to save himself."
-- Vernon Howard
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:10:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 12:43:42 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Because I believe it is most likely that God is a maximally great being. And if true, then by definition he is worthy of worship.

Why would a maximally great being want to be worshipped? On its surface it seems a little egotistical and possibly a sign of insecurity.

I was only saying he was worthy of worship. While I would say he does want to be worshiped. This thread was discussing whether he would need to be worthy of worship
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 12:11:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 10:54:01 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"How come we can accept God becoming man to save man, but we can never seem to accept man becoming God to save himself."
-- Vernon Howard

I really hope it's not up to me becoming god to save myself haha. I'll be in trouble for a long time.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 1:10:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 12:11:40 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/3/2012 10:54:01 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"How come we can accept God becoming man to save man, but we can never seem to accept man becoming God to save himself."
-- Vernon Howard

I really hope it's not up to me becoming god to save myself haha. I'll be in trouble for a long time.

Well, actually, I really like that quote.

I honestly believe that is a true statement. Man can conceive God and science and everything between, but man cannot seem to get a hold of accountability. It really shouldn't be so hard to "fix" things when "things" are of our own contrivance.