Philosophy Now Forum

(Revised argument as of, 12/19/14)

I often try to develop arguments that address my own hang ups with the God concept. I am a believer, but that of course does not render me devoid of doubts from time to time; indeed I often
enough am subject to my flesh born nature. So the following is one of those exercises, but I don’t know if it could qualify as an argument, in the classic sense that philosophers mean by the term. Any thoughts on this at all are welcomed, and if anyone has ways to make the argument more sound then please let me know ….

Inspired by CS Lewis

God calls us to worship Him. It is easy to feel repulsed by such a request; for if any human were to call to be worshipped, surely a reasonable reaction is as such. Therefore, we perceive Gods request as only a human can. However, let us look more closely at it:

1. When we see a glorious painting, hear a glorious song, we admire and even worship it. We do so because it is resonating to us perfection, and in this act of worship, we commune with perfection or a sense of being whole; we seem to vicariously experience what we crave so intensely - to be wholly, or Holy.

2. Music and art are of the world, and therefore because we can see it, touch it and feel it, we impulsively grasp at it; so be it.

3. If god is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and benevolent, then He could not make himself to be as tangible to us as art and music because to do so would render us choice less; especially since He would be vastly more glorious then art and music, who could derive any real motivation to experience this world or achieve any task, when he knew, like he knows about a piece of art or music, the truth of God? In this way it is clear why the absence of God appears as such, and that it could be no other way; for it would render life on earth pointless.

4. If by nature, it is true that we do not often know the right thing to do, then a good God would provide instructions.

5. If a good God provides instructions, and if He is the ultimate source of power, then it follows that He would righteously call us to worship Him; that which is most of all worthy of worship – that which we really above all things crave.

God – is infinite – if it wasn’t there would be boundaries or limits and as such would not eternal.
That which is infinite does nothing - it cannot be worshiped as it is everything - worship is only possible when there is a subject and an object.

BeyondTheAstral wrote:God – is infinite – if it wasn’t there would be boundaries or limits and as such would not eternal.

I’m not sure I follow you …

I believe you have that rather juxtaposed. The eternal is limited to only one thing; time. Eternal is timeless, as in, for all time; therefore, can only exist in the constraint of time. Hence, because there is only the boundary of time itself, it would indeed be considered eternal.

If you refer to Gods laws for this universe let’s say, then those would have to be eternal; as there applicable only in time. However, God himself would have to be more than eternal; he would have to be infinite – not restricted to the boundary of time.

BeyondTheAstral wrote:That which is infinite does nothing - it cannot be worshiped as it is everything - worship is only possible when there is a subject and an object.

I will agree to revise my use of the term “infinite,” because of the following.

The term “infinite” can be argued to be the ultimate abstraction. For this reason, it’s not the best term to use in an argument, because it will raise a slew of new arguments. Thus, for the sake of coherence and clarity, I will eliminate it from the argument.

Let us however, debate the term.

If by saying, “That which is infinite does nothing,” you mean the infinite can do nothing, because before it could, an infinite amount of time would have to pass, (which obviously is unrelatable) then you have a point I believe. This to me is somewhat the troubling thought. It would work against the notion that, “God is the uncaused cause of the ‘eternal’ universe.” Thus, I have something to work on … I will get back to you on this.

Maybe others can shed some light on this dilemma.

Thanks for picking up on this point (eternal) - to clarify what I meant was that which is infinite is not subject to change and is such is immortal.

If God or the Absolute as I prefer is reduced to anything less than an infinite undifferentiated unity then different rules and theories will apply.
The difficulty we all have is the solution exists beyond the mind, and the mind being limited creates a solution with what it has access to

Without going into detail the meditation I do has taken that which is witnessing through me beyond the mind, despite the expanded consciousness the mind still tries to understand it - you can’t understand you can only be.

BeyondTheAstral wrote:The difficulty we all have is the solution exists beyond the mind, and the mind being limited creates a solution with what it has access to

Indeed, that’s what I was just touching on in another thread (Ask a Christian Theist.)

Rationality can spark a revolutionary change of mind in favor of God, but it is not enough to complete the process; it must move into the actual experience of God. That’s the ultimate.

.










.............................................







.

.










.............................................................






.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

.

Yes Bill, I understand your disdain on the subject you raise, but it is a completely different subject.

My argument is not about worshiping God for the sake of saving oneself from hell … my argument is either weak, and if so help me to build it stronger, more coherent, regardless of whether or not you approve of the premises, or you have missed the argument completely. Oh and of course – you may simply enjoy mocking that which you disagree with; I can relate to that too.

Only a kunt wants to be worshipped.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:God calls us to worship Him. It is easy to feel repulsed by such a request;

For whom? I know a significant number of people for whom it would be quite difficult to be repulsed by such a request.

Daniel Lezcano wrote:...for if any human were to call to be worshipped, surely a reasonable reaction is as such.

Wouldn't you need to demonstrate how such a response was "reasonable?" It certainly seems to me that the "surely reasonable" response to the ultimate power in the universe is to do what he or she asked (assuming self-preservation is one's motivation).

Daniel Lezcano wrote:If god is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and benevolent, then He could not make himself to be as tangible to us as art and music because to do so would render us choice less

I'm not sure this follows. Begging the question?