If a creator exists, why worship it?

[JustWondering]

Really? I didn't say either that I believe God exists, or that evidence for God's existence is either available or necessary.

See above.

You clearly claimed your faith wasn't blind faith which implies you have some demonstrable evidence to support your beliefs. So where is it?

 

[JustWondering]

You don't know me very well. You're argument is as non sequitur as "Dawkins believes oranges can't really fly." I'm arguing for "God" as a description of existence itself, not as a definition of some existent, supernatural being. Therefore, however one chooses to describe Deity -- or even if one chooses to describe existence in a non-deific way, those descriptions are valid to me and worthy of my respect. Because existence... is, and there are as many ways to wrap one's head around it as there are people in the world.

This isn't a debate over how well I know you. This debate is about whether a creator wants/deserves worship, if you don't believe such an entity exists and don't want to debate about it why are you posting here. I also never said the creator was or had to be supernatural. It is theologians that trot out the argument that THEIR god exists outside time, our reality, and is not constrained by ANY rules. I am of the mind that if something created us that it is part of the natural universe and is constrained by limitations and rules of its own, just like us.

.

 

[sojourner]

Claiming that something that cannot be seen, heard, or demonstrated to exist in anyway exists and then taking it even further by saying that this something has rules and demands we must abide by requires a LOT of blind faith.

No. It doesn't. It only requires the knowledge that such existence and the attendant rules are metaphors for making meaning of existence.

Whereas rejecting the idea of fantastical invisible beings requires what knowledge?

Who said I thought God was a "fantastical, invisible being?"

Wrong. It is lack of faith altogether that drives my rejection of your god.

Since you don't know beans about "my God," I'd say that your rejection of things you know nothing about constitutes a blind faith in your "knowledge." Just like the religious fanatics who blow up buildings.

 

[sojourner]

You clearly claimed your faith wasn't blind faith which implies you have some demonstrable evidence to support your beliefs. So where is it?

Faith in ... what, exactly? Perhaps the "something" you want me to believe in requires evidence, but since you don't know what I believe (or don't believe), you've got nothing to stand on making claims here.

 

[sojourner]

This isn't a debate over how well I know you.

No, it isn't. But your argument does imply that you know something about what I believe -- which you clearly don't.

This debate is about whether a creator wants/deserves worship

This debate is about if a creator exists, why worship it. Not about whether such creator wants or deserves worship.

if you don't believe such an entity exists and don't want to debate about it why are you posting here.

Pot, meet Kettle. if you don't believe such an entity exists, why are you posting here?

I also never said the creator was or had to be supernatural.

Neither did I, yet you seem to imply that I did.

It is theologians that trot out the argument that THEIR god exists outside time, our reality, and is not constrained by ANY rules.

I'm a theologian. I never said that. In fact, you may remember that I said precisely the opposite.

I am of the mind that if something created us that it is part of the natural universe and is constrained by limitations and rules of its own, just like us.

I am of the mind that it is the creative principle, itself, that we worship. And that, since creation is a lifelong process, we are always engaging in that process. And that worship is the primary vehicle by which that process is fostered.

 

[JustWondering]

No. It doesn't. It only requires the knowledge that such existence and the attendant rules are metaphors for making meaning of existence.

The vast majority of people who are religious and claim to follow a god do not think of their gods or their rules as metaphors. If you do than good for you, whatever. This debate is about whether a creator being (not a metaphor) desires and/or is worthy of worship.

Who said I thought God was a "fantastical, invisible being?"

I was referring to the god concept most theologians I am familiar with believe in. If you believe in something different than maybe you should include more details about that in your posts.

Since you don't know beans about "my God," I'd say that your rejection of things you know nothing about constitutes a blind faith in your "knowledge." Just like the religious fanatics who blow up buildings.

Then enlighten me.

 

[JustWondering]

No, it isn't. But your argument does imply that you know something about what I believe -- which you clearly don't.

This debate is about if a creator exists, why worship it. Not about whether such creator wants or deserves worship.

Pot, meet Kettle. if you don't believe such an entity exists, why are you posting here?

Neither did I, yet you seem to imply that I did.

I'm a theologian. I never said that. In fact, you may remember that I said precisely the opposite.

I am of the mind that it is the creative principle, itself, that we worship. And that, since creation is a lifelong process, we are always engaging in that process. And that worship is the primary vehicle by which that process is fostered.

If I remember correctly, you chimed in with retorts about the Bill Maher clip I posted. You did not make it quickly or clearly known that the position you were defending wasn't one you held yourself. That is a failure of communication on your part.

I am posting in this thread because I am the one who started the thread in the first place.

 

[sojourner]

his debate is about whether a creator being (not a metaphor) desires and/or is worthy of worship.

1) If that's the case, again: Why are you here?
2) That stipulation isn't spelled out in the OP. Therefore, "creator" can take whatever meaning one assigns to it."

If you believe in something different than maybe you should include more details about that in your posts.

Perhaps you shouldn't generalize.

Then enlighten me.

Judging by your other posts, you don't really care what others believe; you simply want to put forward a straw man to knock down. "Enlightening" you, therefore, would only result in a waste of my time and give you fodder for ridicule. Suffice to say that not all models of God conform to your straw man, and do not depend upon blind faith.

 

[sojourner]

I am posting in this thread because I am the one who started the thread in the first place.

Why? Why write the OP if you clearly don't care? What's your motivation?

 

[Desert Snake]

If the human race created a new sentient species in the future (doesn't really matter how in this scenario) would it make sense for us to have this new species worship us? I personally think that would be a bit odd and blatantly narcissistic.

So if humanity was created by a "god" would it want our worship? Is this "god" if it exists even worthy of worship since it doesn't interfere in our daily lives for good or ill?

Whos' asking you to worship anything? I'm not.

 

[JustWondering]

Whos' asking you to worship anything? I'm not.

I never said you did. It is a theoretical question to discuss and debate.

 

[sojourner]

I never said you did. It is a theoretical question to discuss and debate.

Here's the thing: if you're going to assume the God of the bible for purposes of this debate, then you can't run contrary to the bible in deciding whether or not God desires our worship. And the bible is pretty clear on that point. God wants to be our God, and wants us to be God's people. And God directs God's people to worship. According to the bible.
So, unless you're willing to entertain other, non-biblical models for God, there really is no debate to be had here.

 

[JustWondering]

1) If that's the case, again: Why are you here?

Why are you here? I am in the debate forums because I like to debate. I am here because I find the subject of religion, and why people believe what they do interesting.

2) That stipulation isn't spelled out in the OP. Therefore, "creator" can take whatever meaning one assigns to it."

You can assign whatever meaning to creator that you like, have at it.

Judging by your other posts, you don't really care what others believe; you simply want to put forward a straw man to knock down. "Enlightening" you, therefore, would only result in a waste of my time and give you fodder for ridicule. Suffice to say that not all models of God conform to your straw man, and do not depend upon blind faith.

You seem to be taking this all quite personally. I am in the debate forums because I like to debate. If you don't want to debate this with me, don't. If you don't want to debate anything about your beliefs/views you could simply send me a private message about it. Otherwise, if you think communicating with me is a waste of your time because I'm a jerk (as my title clearly states), don't.

 

[JustWondering]

Here's the thing: if you're going to assume the God of the bible for purposes of this debate, then you can't run contrary to the bible in deciding whether or not God desires our worship. And the bible is pretty clear on that point. God wants to be our God, and wants us to be God's people. And God directs God's people to worship. According to the bible.
So, unless you're willing to entertain other, non-biblical models for God, there really is no debate to be had here.

I put the word god in quotes thinking that it would be clear that different models of a creator or "god" could and would be discussed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Love isn't forced. Love isn't a line you draw in the sand and dare someone to step over. Love gives power; it doesn't take power. So, therefore, your atheism is "too strong" for God to overcome. God doesn't overcome. God invites. Love is a choice. If God isn't living up to your expectations for how God behaves toward you, have you considered whether you've lived up to those same expectations of yourself toward God?

Yes, we must have the choice not to love, not to believe, not to give thanks, or all these things are meaningless. That some chose to be believe in atheism should be expected, necessary even.

 

[OurCreed]

You are making a huge assumption. If something created us, it doesn't have to love or care about us. I doubt a being that is capable of creating universes has the same mindset, values, desires, and emotions we have. Such a being could be completely alien to us in every way.

The fact that humans can build cities and civilizations proves that humans can build cities and civilizations, period. A god didn't build them for us.

Yes, water is necessary for life as we know it, too bad not everyone can get it. If god really cared about ALL of us why is it that not everyone has access to water?




Another assumption. I believe that the matter and energy that makes up this universe has always existed and always will. The laws that determine how matter and energy function and interact have always existed and always will. The universe simply exists and is eternal. Any sentient being that exists is composed of matter and energy and had a beginning of some kind (be it naturally occurring or at the hands of another being). The only infinite is the raw matter and energy floating around in the cosmos and the rules dictating how they react with each other.



Your reasoning is not logical. Your reasoning is obviously influenced by your religious beliefs and desires. If the act of creation automatically makes the created loved and cared about, why did our loving and caring creator allow the dinosaurs to go extinct? If a creator exists and loves us, why did it create and infect us with nasty diseases that cause massive amounts of pain and agony? Why does good fortune and misfortune seem to occur randomly to people regardless of their faith, talents, circumstances, or whether they are a good or bad person? Simple observation of how the world is gives more than sufficient evidence to support the claim that if a creator of some kind exists it is not taking an active role in our affairs for good or ill.

"You are making a huge assumption. If something created us, it doesn't have to love or care about us. I doubt a being that is capable of creating universes has the same mindset, values, desires, and emotions we have. Such a being could be completely alien to us in every way."

If you can think rationally for one second, all the pieces fall in place. Assuming the universe was created by an all-powerful creator, then the logic automatically follows that whatever this creator creates, it has created it out of its own will and purpose. And everything that this creator creates, it would have designed it very carefully in regards to what it has created, and the functions that the creator has given the creation.

Looking at humans, and other life forms, we can already tell the creator cares about our existence, and it has given us means of our livelihood and sustenance, so that we may survive. Nobody is claiming that the emotions and values of the creator is the same as us, but it would be illogical to say the creator has no value of its own. The fact that WE, the creation have value, points to the one who brings value into existence, the creator.

"The fact that humans can build cities and civilizations proves that humans can build cities and civilizations, period. A god didn't build them for us."

Assuming a creator exists, God created all the matter and energy the universe contains, God created planets, God created life on planets, God gave intelligence to life, life used intelligence for its own sustenance. Everything points to the creator.

"Yes, water is necessary for life as we know it, too bad not everyone can get it. If god really cared about ALL of us why is it that not everyone has access to water?"

You are speaking of the problem of evil, and specifically a human problem. God created water and has given all human beings the ability to find and drink water, bodies to absorb and digest water. No human being is excluded from this right, that shows that God cares.

The fact that some humans around the world do not have access to water is not a problem by God, it's a man made problem. If you decide to live in a place where water is scarce, then you deprive yourself from sustenance. Now I am not saying that it is the people's fault that they cannot get water. I am saying that the way we human beings live in the world, our actions have consequences. When you build homes in tornado valleys, there's a chance your house may be destroyed by a tornado. If you build a house on top of a volcano, there's a chance your house will burn to a crisp. That wouldn't be God's fault, but our own.

Now there are many powerful countries and organizations that can end world hunger, but do we utilize our best efforts? Absolutely not. So this type of problem of evil that you address, it's not a problem from God, it's a problem from man.

God cares, because when you planet seeds in the soil and water it, it will grow, if you do it right. No human is deprived from this blessing.

But if the government of the land disallows humans from planting seeds to grow food, that isn't God's fault that some humans aren't being fed.

"Another assumption. I believe that the matter and energy that makes up this universe has always existed and always will. The laws that determine how matter and energy function and interact have always existed and always will. The universe simply exists and is eternal. Any sentient being that exists is composed of matter and energy and had a beginning of some kind (be it naturally occurring or at the hands of another being). The only infinite is the raw matter and energy floating around in the cosmos and the rules dictating how they react with each other."

If the universe is eternal, meaning that it has an infinite past, then time would never get here. You commit the logical fallacy of infinite regression. The universe is a physical and limited world, and it is impossible for it to have an infinite past. So your assumption is, just an assumption, a belief.

"Your reasoning is not logical. Your reasoning is obviously influenced by your religious beliefs and desires."

Sorry, but nobody is bringing in religion here. It is all logic. How is it illogical to say that everything that is created has a creator? How is it illogical to say that the universe was not intelligently designed and the creations within it were not evolved by an evolver? My reasoning is far from being illogical.

"If the act of creation automatically makes the created loved and cared about, why did our loving and caring creator allow the dinosaurs to go extinct?"

First off, you need to understand this. Since the Creator is the most absolute and supreme force of everything that can ever exist, that means the Creator does everything that it wills and pleases, and NOBODY can say otherwise. Good and evil do not exist for the Creator, because good and evil are just mental and emotional perceptions that the Creator created in our human minds. The perceptions of morality do not exist in animals, or insignificant life forms, etc, just humans, and there's a reason for that which we can get into. But the bottom line is, the Creator is all-powerful and absolute, it will do whatever it pleases, it has power to do all that it pleases, and nobody can question it in regards to anything.

It's not a tyrant, because a tyrant rules by force, the Creator rules regardless of any outside force, the Creator is the ruler by default, it can never be changed, so the Creator is not an unjust tyrant as most atheists perceive.

"If a creator exists and loves us, why did it create and infect us with nasty diseases that cause massive amounts of pain and agony?"

The Creator created life, it is delicate, and if you tamper with it, then life will cease to function properly.

You cannot grow a pumpkin if you plant apple seeds. You can not grow any crop with any liquid unless it is water. You can never grow anything without sunlight or another form of energy. This is how life is created, it is designed and created in a certain way, and all life follows the rules and laws by what the Creator set them as.

Pain and agony are blessings, and they are vital to our survival. Without pain, life will not survive, as pain is needed so that life can know what is dangerous and harmful for it. Without pain, there is no gain. Everything has been created for a purpose.

"Why does good fortune and misfortune seem to occur randomly to people regardless of their faith, talents, circumstances, or whether they are a good or bad person?"

Because the purpose of human life is to get closer to the Creator, to find Him and get closer to Him. Life is a test, no human being will pass through life without trials, tribulations, hardships, and unfortunate circumstances. Every human soul has been created with a special purpose to find and worship their Creator, and without a test, there will not be true worship.

Another reason why misfortune exists is so that the opposite exists. Without evil, there cannot be good. Good can never exist if there is no evil. Similarly, happiness can never exist if there is no sadness. You need both.

"Simple observation of how the world is gives more than sufficient evidence to support the claim that if a creator of some kind exists it is not taking an active role in our affairs for good or ill."

Everything I have stated so far was from logical reasoning. Your questions have been answered. The way the entire world works is actually sufficient evidence to support the fact that there is a Creator.

 

[viole]

Looking at humans, and other life forms, we can already tell the creator cares about our existence, and it has given us means of our livelihood and sustenance, so that we may survive. Nobody is claiming that the emotions and values of the creator is the same as us, but it would be illogical to say the creator has no value of its own. The fact that WE, the creation have value, points to the one who brings value into existence, the creator.

And what makes you think we have value for the rest of the Universe? I am sure that the Andromeda galaxy will not weep if we get extinct tomorrow.

Assuming a creator exists, God created all the matter and energy the universe contains, God created planets, God created life on planets, God gave intelligence to life, life used intelligence for its own sustenance. Everything points to the creator.

Assuming a creator exists, everything points to the creator. Right.

Assuming Thor generate lighnings, lighnings point to Thor. Ergo, Thor exists.

God cares, because when you planet seeds in the soil and water it, it will grow, if you do it right. No human is deprived from this blessing.

But if the government of the land disallows humans from planting seeds to grow food, that isn't God's fault that some humans aren't being fed.

I thought it was a good think to create misery so that we can appreciate what is good. If God does it, with eathquakes, tsunamis, children cancer, ebola, etc. why should we not? We are in His image, after all.

If the universe is eternal, meaning that it has an infinite past, then time would never get here. You commit the logical fallacy of infinite regression. The universe is a physical and limited world, and it is impossible for it to have an infinite past. So your assumption is, just an assumption, a belief.

And you committ the fallacy of composition by assuming that temporal concepts apply to the context thereof.

Sorry, but nobody is bringing in religion here. It is all logic. How is it illogical to say that everything that is created has a creator? How is it illogical to say that the universe was not intelligently designed and the creations within it were not evolved by an evolver? My reasoning is far from being illogical.

It is illogical because it assumes that everything has been created, putting thereby the conclusions in the premises. It is called circular reasoning, or begging the question.

First off, you need to understand this. Since the Creator is the most absolute and supreme force of everything that can ever exist, that means the Creator does everything that it wills and pleases, and NOBODY can say otherwise. Good and evil do not exist for the Creator, because good and evil are just mental and emotional perceptions that the Creator created in our human minds. The perceptions of morality do not exist in animals, or insignificant life forms, etc, just humans, and there's a reason for that which we can get into. But the bottom line is, the Creator is all-powerful and absolute, it will do whatever it pleases, it has power to do all that it pleases, and nobody can question it in regards to anything.

Of course, He can do whatever He pleases. But since He gave us morality, I am perfectly entitled to say that His own morality is suboptimal, to put it mildly.

Because the purpose of human life is to get closer to the Creator, to find Him and get closer to Him. Life is a test, no human being will pass through life without trials, tribulations, hardships, and unfortunate circumstances. Every human soul has been created with a special purpose to find and worship their Creator, and without a test, there will not be true worship.

Does God need to test stuff?

If you make a computer program that does not pass a test, who would you blame?

Another reason why misfortune exists is so that the opposite exists. Without evil, there cannot be good. Good can never exist if there is no evil. Similarly, happiness can never exist if there is no sadness. You need both.

Ergo, there must be a lot of sadness in Heaven. Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hawkins]

If the human race created a new sentient species in the future (doesn't really matter how in this scenario) would it make sense for us to have this new species worship us? I personally think that would be a bit odd and blatantly narcissistic.

So if humanity was created by a "god" would it want our worship? Is this "god" if it exists even worthy of worship since it doesn't interfere in our daily lives for good or ill?

You are arguing from the wrong premises.

You assume that worshiping is doing a favor for God, but only the opposite is true. Those who failed to worship God will finally go the way of sinning and thus leaving God. Alternatively speaking, the start of a miserable path always begins with failed to worship God. That's why loving God and man is the first principle in Christianity. Love of God, faith in Him, Obedience, worshiping they are the same stuff in nature which keep humans/angels close to God such that they won't start to stray away. To put it another way, the best way to avoid humans fall (angels as well) is for them to love God, worship Him, having faith in Him because failed to do so marks the beginning of straying away to a miserable path.

God doesn't interfere because He has a good reason to stay behind. Humans will have to rely on a covenant to be saved which makes God's hiding behind a necessity. Or else you don't need faith to believe in order to be saved.


You are arguing not only from the wrong premises, but also as a result of relying on human intelligence to question God. God hides the Tree of Life such that you won't see beyond what would happen afterlife. While when you choose to rely on your intelligence to make a judgment that God doesn't exist, "the day you eat of it, the same day you shall surely die" (Genesis 101).

 

[JustWondering]

If you can think rationally for one second, all the pieces fall in place. Assuming the universe was created by an all-powerful creator, then the logic automatically follows that whatever this creator creates, it has created it out of its own will and purpose. And everything that this creator creates, it would have designed it very carefully in regards to what it has created, and the functions that the creator has given the creation.

Looking at humans, and other life forms, we can already tell the creator cares about our existence, and it has given us means of our livelihood and sustenance, so that we may survive. Nobody is claiming that the emotions and values of the creator is the same as us, but it would be illogical to say the creator has no value of its own. The fact that WE, the creation have value, points to the one who brings value into existence, the creator.

You cannot have it both ways. To a rational unbiased observer of our world and universe, the existence of some invisible creator god is not evident. As you perfectly demonstrated above, for one to believe in such a being one has to first assume it exists because there is no rational convincing argument or evidence to support this being's existence. You can try to use the argument that our world seems to be designed for life to exist and function on it but science has given perfectly plausible explanations for how life could arise and evolve to get to what we see today, without interference from a "grand designer". If some creator kicked off the big bang to create the universe as we know it, we could just be a by-product of the universes formation. Assuming the universe was created just as a stage to center around humanities petty self-centered concerns would be supremely arrogant don't you think?

Assuming a creator exists, God created all the matter and energy the universe contains, God created planets, God created life on planets, God gave intelligence to life, life used intelligence for its own sustenance. Everything points to the creator.

So assuming a creator exists I would assume it possesses a rational mind capable of logical thought, yes? Your god concept (which I do not believe can logically exist) ultimately wishes to create a world full of humans that are completely obedient to its will and follows all it's laws and rules, yes? So why didn't your god concept just create the world it wanted in the first place? I am not interested in arguments about free will and faith, they are flimsy irrational arguments created by apologists to try explaining away the logical inconsistencies in their beliefs. Free will is an illusion, blind faith in unproven supernatural entities being a virtue is straight up laughable. So why worship a hidden creator that purposely created a chaotic world full of random misfortunes?

You are speaking of the problem of evil, and specifically a human problem. God created water and has given all human beings the ability to find and drink water, bodies to absorb and digest water. No human being is excluded from this right, that shows that God cares.

The fact that some humans around the world do not have access to water is not a problem by God, it's a man made problem. If you decide to live in a place where water is scarce, then you deprive yourself from sustenance. Now I am not saying that it is the people's fault that they cannot get water. I am saying that the way we human beings live in the world, our actions have consequences. When you build homes in tornado valleys, there's a chance your house may be destroyed by a tornado. If you build a house on top of a volcano, there's a chance your house will burn to a crisp. That wouldn't be God's fault, but our own.

Now there are many powerful countries and organizations that can end world hunger, but do we utilize our best efforts? Absolutely not. So this type of problem of evil that you address, it's not a problem from God, it's a problem from man.

God cares, because when you planet seeds in the soil and water it, it will grow, if you do it right. No human is deprived from this blessing.

But if the government of the land disallows humans from planting seeds to grow food, that isn't God's fault that some humans aren't being fed.

No, I do not believe ALL of humanities woes are caused due to us being sinful creatures. That is a irrational belief to hold. By that logic only good things would happen to good people and bad things to bad people. It is blatantly obvious that is not the world we live in.

If the universe is eternal, meaning that it has an infinite past, then time would never get here. You commit the logical fallacy of infinite regression. The universe is a physical and limited world, and it is impossible for it to have an infinite past. So your assumption is, just an assumption, a belief.

My belief is based on the FACTS that the physical universe obviously exists and is constantly changing. Certain religious beliefs that an invisible man created the universe using magic is based on what again?

Sorry, but nobody is bringing in religion here. It is all logic. How is it illogical to say that everything that is created has a creator? How is it illogical to say that the universe was not intelligently designed and the creations within it were not evolved by an evolver? My reasoning is far from being illogical.

When you can prove that anything in the natural world was created your assumption will be logical. As of yet, there is no logical reason that the universe requires a creator.

First off, you need to understand this. Since the Creator is the most absolute and supreme force of everything that can ever exist, that means the Creator does everything that it wills and pleases, and NOBODY can say otherwise. Good and evil do not exist for the Creator, because good and evil are just mental and emotional perceptions that the Creator created in our human minds. The perceptions of morality do not exist in animals, or insignificant life forms, etc, just humans, and there's a reason for that which we can get into. But the bottom line is, the Creator is all-powerful and absolute, it will do whatever it pleases, it has power to do all that it pleases, and nobody can question it in regards to anything.

It's not a tyrant, because a tyrant rules by force, the Creator rules regardless of any outside force, the Creator is the ruler by default, it can never be changed, so the Creator is not an unjust tyrant as most atheists perceive.

So the act of creating makes the created cared about until the supreme one decides to stop caring, got it.

Answer the rest later, something came up.

 

[OurCreed]

And what makes you think we have value for the rest of the Universe? I am sure that the Andromeda galaxy will not weep if we get extinct tomorrow.



Assuming a creator exists, everything points to the creator. Right.

Assuming Thor generate lighnings, lighnings point to Thor. Ergo, Thor exists.




I thought it was a good think to create misery so that we can appreciate what is good. If God does it, with eathquakes, tsunamis, children cancer, ebola, etc. why should we not? We are in His image, after all.



And you committ the fallacy of composition by assuming that temporal concepts apply to the context thereof.



It is illogical because it assumes that everything has been created, putting thereby the conclusions in the premises. It is called circular reasoning, or begging the question.



Of course, He can do whatever He pleases. But since He gave us morality, I am perfectly entitled to say that His own morality is suboptimal, to put it mildly.



Does God need to test stuff?

If you make a computer program that does not pass a test, who would you blame?



Ergo, there must be a lot of sadness in Heaven. Correct?

Ciao

- viole

"And what makes you think we have value for the rest of the Universe? I am sure that the Andromeda galaxy will not weep if we get extinct tomorrow."

We are valued by our creator, not by the creator's creation. If there is a creator, the creator values what it creates. That is what I am saying.

"Assuming Thor generate lighnings, lighnings point to Thor. Ergo, Thor exists."

You are misunderstanding my point. You were talking about how humans built buildings and such, so there's no reason to point to the creator and say the creator made it. I refuted you by saying, 'ASSUMING' a creator exists, all the buildings and architecture and all of our technological advances is all because of the creator because the creator created all of these things to begin with, matter, energy, heck, even our own brains so that we can learn.

"I thought it was a good think to create misery so that we can appreciate what is good. If God does it, with eathquakes, tsunamis, children cancer, ebola, etc. why should we not? We are in His image, after all."

We don't have to create misery because the reality of it already exists in our perspective and in our world. You're mixing two things together. We don't have to create pain so that we know what is joy. We don't have to create sadness so we know what is happiness, our minds since we were babies already know this fact. Most babies cry when they are first delivered, why? Because of the fundamental principles that were created by the creator since the beginning. They already exist, we humans don't have to do anything.

And on a side note, if you think earthquakes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters are 'evil', let me ask you another question. Is a supernova in outer space evil? Is a black hole engulfing a star evil? Was the big bang evil? These are illogical and childish perspectives. Natural disasters aren't evil, they serve a purpose on this earth.

And in regards to diseases, I already explained it to you. We are immortal creatures, we are vulnerable to death, decay, and disease, whether we are young or old. That is how we were created. This doesn't mean these things are evil. Life is temporary, are you going to call life 'evil' as well?

"And you committ the fallacy of composition by assuming that temporal concepts apply to the context thereof."

You claimed the universe is eternal, meaning that its past went on forever.

I explained why that isn't possible. If the past went on forever, time would never get to the present, we wouldn't exist. I am looking at the whole picture, you are not.

A simple example for this is, imagine if a man wanted to shoot a bird on a tree, but before he can shoot, he has to ask his friend for permission. Now the man's friend cannot give him permission until the friend asks his own friend for permission, and the second friend has to ask a third friend, and a third friend has to ask a fourth. Now if this keeps going on and on forever, will the man with the gun ever shoot the bird?

Never.

Same thing here, apply this logic with the universe being eternal. If time went on forever in the past, then why are we living in the present? Time in the past infinitely means that time will never get here...it's mind boggling, and illogical.

Also to say, what you believe contradicts modern established science as well in terms of the big bang theory. Both theists and atheists accept the big bang theory and accept the fact that the universe had a beginning. Your belief is not the popular belief, nor the well supported one by evidence.

"It is illogical because it assumes that everything has been created, putting thereby the conclusions in the premises. It is called circular reasoning, or begging the question."

Hah, if only you think it to be that.

There's nothing wrong with assuming every thing has a creator because we can see that reality in our world today. No circular reasoning, no begging the question. We have evidence. All material and physical things and existences came from somewhere or something greater.

If we want to look at it mathematically, all finites can come only from infinites. Since you believe the universe is eternal (which contradicts science), this will be hard for you to accept, but according to science and math, finites only come from infinites, and this universe (which is finite), came from something infinite.

It's all logic, the universe was created.

Of course, He can do whatever He pleases. But since He gave us morality, I am perfectly entitled to say that His own morality is suboptimal, to put it mildly.

If the creator has its own morality, then that means the creator is subject to something ELSE which is greater than it, so therefore, the creator won't truly be the greatest, and the creator would have another creator.

So your argument makes no sense. Assuming the creator that we are speaking of is the greatest existence, then morality does not exist for the creator. There is no good or evil for God, everything is neutral. That is the logical standpoint. God created human beings and made them conscious and basically planted into our heads what is the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing to do. It doesn't actually exist on an absolute level.

A simple proof of this is saying, is a lion killing a deer for food evil? In HUMAN terms, if I killed a person to eat them, then yes, people will say I am evil. But that is because we call it evil in our HUMAN perspective.

But a lion killing a deer is not evil at all, because morality is completely non-existent in the ANIMAL perspective.

This shows us that morality is not absolute in our own perspectives, and we can't use our perspectives and use that to judge the creator who created these perspectives to begin with. It would be illogical.

"Does God need to test stuff? If you make a computer program that does not pass a test, who would you blame?"

Depends on whom the test is for. God does not need anything from us, He does not HAVE to test us. There's a difference between HAVING to do something, and WANTING to do something.

I just said earlier that God does what He pleases, and that would be logical, because if the creator exists, He has absolute power and dominion and can do whatever He wants. So God wanted to create a creation which He will test. He does what He pleases. The test is for us, not for Him, He already knows the results.

"Ergo, there must be a lot of sadness in Heaven. Correct?"

It's good that you mentioned that.

The concept of evil will exist in heaven, but it will never be manifested.

So basically, imagine a perfect world on earth. People KNOW that someone can murder someone, that people can steal, that random sicknesses and disasters can happen at any moment, but it will never happen because God ensured heaven will be a place of eternal happiness with absolutely no misfortune.

So no, heaven will not be filled with sadness or evil. The concepts will still be there so that good and evil can be defined, but the evil itself will never be manifested, so life will always be good.

And that is possible for the Creator.

Good day.