What would it take for you to worship a god?

[A Tripolation]

Say you die, and you are confronted with this entity. Let's presume it has the omnipotence and omniscience like many gods of various pantheons do. It didn't care whether or not your worship was sincere, but it demanded it, or eternal punishment was the consequence. Would you worship it, or accept the punishment?

 

What I'm asking is if anyone could logically accept eternal punishment that will never end over something as finite and subjective as pride or morals.

 

BTW, this question has no ulterior motives and is not setting anyone up for anything. I do not believe in a Hell.

 

So. What would you do?

[Mrs Zeta]

I can't see why anyone would accept eternal punishment. For what reason? I wouldn',t and I would worship this entity.

[imatfaal]

I think the question fails to work because I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I would believe the worship/salvation vs nonworship/damnation decision to be necessary and unchallengeable.

 

For something like that to be proved to me would require a sea-change in my worldview, contradict so much that I hold to be true, and go against the entire logical underpinning of my sense of self; I am not sure that I would be the same person. So much would have changed that I do not think I could give any valid answer as to what I would do in those new circumstances.

 

I would class it with the gedenken that posit a situation totally at odds with physics as we know it (FTL rocket etc) and then ask what happens - if you remove the basic foundation I can no longer base my answer on anything . Still a good question though...

[A Tripolation]

I would class it with the gedenken that posit a situation totally at odds with physics as we know it (FTL rocket etc) and then ask what happens - if you remove the basic foundation I can no longer base my answer on anything . Still a good question though...

 

So you're saying that since the idea of a deity or deities exists outside your logical thought process, you can't answer? Apologies if this statement is incorrect.

Edited January 20, 2011 by A Tripolation

[Doc. Josh]

Well i suppose if i died and was faced with the GOD that would damn me to hell. then i would have to side with the highest bidder i mean if this god was real and this hell was real and all i had to do was bow dance or whatever. Then why suffer in hell, i mean if i get to go heaven and relax or whatever then ill take it, fire and me dont mix. Asuming this scenario is a fact, other than that i do not believe in God-God's almighty power damnation eternal hell etc... it's a scary story to make people abide by the rules, In my opinion. Not to bash offend anybody in any shape or form.

[Mr Skeptic]

Say you die, and you are confronted with this entity. Let's presume it has the omnipotence and omniscience like many gods of various pantheons do. It didn't care whether or not your worship was sincere, but it demanded it, or eternal punishment was the consequence. Would you worship it, or accept the punishment?

 

What I'm asking is if anyone could logically accept eternal punishment that will never end over something as finite and subjective as pride or morals.

 

Oh, you mean like Lucifer? I don't think I have enough integrity/altruism/whatever to face the wrath of an omnipotent god.

[A Tripolation]

Oh, you mean like Lucifer? I don't think I have enough integrity/altruism/whatever to face the wrath of an omnipotent god.

 

Traditional Christian theology (the only one that Lucifer plays a large part in) has Lucifer being no more omnipotent than the other Archangels. Powerful, but not capable of damnation. So I'm not sure what you meant.

 

But I appreciate your second sentence. That's what I was after. Thanks.

Edited January 20, 2011 by A Tripolation

[zapatos]

This is a little creepy, but what you describe sounds a lot like how things are done in North Korea. I hope Kim Il-sung is not up there waiting for us...

[Sisyphus]

Traditional Christian theology (the only one that Lucifer plays a large part in) has Lucifer being no more omnipotent than the other Archangels. Powerful, but not capable of damnation. So I'm not sure what you meant.

 

But I appreciate your second sentence. That's what I was after. Thanks.

 

I think he meant that that is the choice Lucifer made: to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven. (At least in Milton.)

 

I don't think I have his integrity, either. Though I suppose it might depend on what heaven and hell are actually like, and what "worshiping" actually involves.

[A Tripolation]

I think he meant that that is the choice Lucifer made: to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven. (At least in Milton.)

 

I don't think I have his integrity, either. Though I suppose it might depend on what heaven and hell are actually like, and what "worshiping" actually involves.

 

Ah. I didn't see the Paradise Lost reference. Thank you, Sisyphus. And that's what I'm talking about. What worship would you refuse? What Hell would you avoid at all costs?

[john5746]

Ah. I didn't see the Paradise Lost reference. Thank you, Sisyphus. And that's what I'm talking about. What worship would you refuse? What Hell would you avoid at all costs?

 

Of course, no brainer. I hate pain. Eternal agony? I can't think of anything worth that. I'll lie, steal, cheat, or kill to avoid it. Of course, in the back of my mind I would be thinking this loser is probably lying, I mean he is a sick a-hole who is terrorizing people.

[Mr Skeptic]

Traditional Christian theology (the only one that Lucifer plays a large part in) has Lucifer being no more omnipotent than the other Archangels. Powerful, but not capable of damnation. So I'm not sure what you meant.

 

I meant him as an example of someone who is perfectly aware of god's existence and power, yet chose to reject Him. But for what reason? Surely he knew that he has no chance against an omnipotent god, so he couldn't have been acting in his own self-interest? (I don't think hell would have the social structure necessary for someone to rule it, whatever that would mean, nor that the honor of ruling it would be granted to the bad guy in chief.) And it was not just Lucifer that rejected God, but 1/3 of the angels as well. But why?

[Edtharan]

Say you die, and you are confronted with this entity. Let's presume it has the omnipotence and omniscience like many gods of various pantheons do. It didn't care whether or not your worship was sincere, but it demanded it, or eternal punishment was the consequence. Would you worship it, or accept the punishment?

Based on this first paragraph, I would worship. If such an entity was real, then I would admit it was real. For me, reality trumps everything.

 

What I'm asking is if anyone could logically accept eternal punishment that will never end over something as finite and subjective as pride or morals.

Hmm, well to worship an immoral God would be Hell for me (so they would be logically identical in that respect). So, I'd be damned (litterally) on either choice, so I would vote with my morals and reject an immoral God.

[A Tripolation]

I meant him as an example of someone who is perfectly aware of god's existence and power, yet chose to reject Him. But for what reason? Surely he knew that he has no chance against an omnipotent god, so he couldn't have been acting in his own self-interest? (I don't think hell would have the social structure necessary for someone to rule it, whatever that would mean, nor that the honor of ruling it would be granted to the bad guy in chief.) And it was not just Lucifer that rejected God, but 1/3 of the angels as well. But why?

 

That's a dam good question Mr Skeptic. The typical answer is that they're evil and want God's power no matter the cost, but I feel there may have been other reasons.

 

Based on this first paragraph, I would worship. If such an entity was real, then I would admit it was real. For me, reality trumps everything.

 

What if his moral alignment were never revealed to you, and this god would never allow you to know? Would you still worship it?

 

Hmm' date=' well to worship an immoral God would be Hell for me (so they would be logically identical in that respect). So, I'd be damned (litterally) on either choice, so I would vote with my morals and reject an immoral God.

[/quote']

 

So you could choose a physical hell over a mental hell?

[imatfaal]

So you're saying that since the idea of a deity or deities exists outside your logical thought process, you can't answer? Apologies if this statement is incorrect.

 

Basically yes - Not so much that it contradict my logical thought process, but that it blows away all the foundations upon which I start the process of applying logic. Of course I could answer, I would be strong and resolute and refuse to worship such an evil god, I would be weak and craven and give up all human dignity in exchange for future rewards; but who actually knows what or how they would react in real world future situations let alone those that challenge one's very ideas of reality.

 

It is a good question that I though I had managed to weasel out of answering - but failed there too... I'll probably burn.

[Sisyphus]

That's a dam good question Mr Skeptic. The typical answer is that they're evil and want God's power no matter the cost, but I feel there may have been other reasons.

 

But it's not a matter of cost. God's power is unattainable at any cost, and the rebellious angels know that. They knowingly struggle in vain, as the alternative to willing submission. What they're "buying" with their defiance and banishment to hell is simply free will. They are described as not simply "evil," whatever that means, but rather proud.

[A Tripolation]

But it's not a matter of cost. God's power is unattainable at any cost, and the rebellious angels know that. They knowingly struggle in vain, as the alternative to willing submission. What they're "buying" with their defiance and banishment to hell is simply free will. They are described as not simply "evil," whatever that means, but rather proud.

 

They were prideful, Lucifer mostly so, for desiring a seat higher than God. And pride is considered a sin to the Judeo-Christian God. And sins are classified as evil.

 

It's quite a radical shift to view the fallen angels as entities to be respected, if that's what you're implying.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not implying anything. I'm just describing the situation.

 

Although it's not really that radical. Modern readers of Milton are often surprised to find themselves more sympathetic to Lucifer, as modern sensibilities tend to be heavily influenced by humanism, in which having individual free will and ambition is considered a positive thing and unquestioning subservience a negative. See also: the Tower of Babel.

[Schrödinger's hat]

My thoughts were much along the same lines as those of Edtharan.

Worshipping such a creature would be hell for me.

Another point is that pain only bothers me because it is indicative of physical trauma or malfunction. It can be distracting and prevent thought if powerful enough, but who is to say I would not become accustomed to it and learn to function after a time? Or even that pain would have any relevance to a soul?

I think that hell would be the least punishing of the two options, I would choose free will over whatever pleasures were offered for this reason alone.

I think I would also choose it for the moral reasons alone, but it is hard to separate.

[lemur]

Say you die, and you are confronted with this entity. Let's presume it has the omnipotence and omniscience like many gods of various pantheons do. It didn't care whether or not your worship was sincere, but it demanded it, or eternal punishment was the consequence. Would you worship it, or accept the punishment?

 

What I'm asking is if anyone could logically accept eternal punishment that will never end over something as finite and subjective as pride or morals.

I would see it as a trap, temptation to submit to arbitrary authority with insincere faith as proof of my renunciation of faith in true truth and reasonable/good authority/power. This would be, imo, like the ultimate method that Lucifer uses to take God's place in the worship of humans with the free will to choose to decline. It also seems to be the ideology promoted at many churches, leading you to wonder whether God has been replaced with Lucifer and nevertheless called "God" for idolatry's sake.

 

 

(I don't think hell would have the social structure necessary for someone to rule it, whatever that would mean, nor that the honor of ruling it would be granted to the bad guy in chief.)

That's funny. I would think that hell would consist exclusively of social structure with various forms of short-term pleasure followed by agonizing dead-ends. Social structure in hell would be like an infinitely complex bureaucracy with the ability to endless channel you into misery by your own volition as a result of unfavorable choice structuring.

 

But it's not a matter of cost. God's power is unattainable at any cost, and the rebellious angels know that. They knowingly struggle in vain, as the alternative to willing submission. What they're "buying" with their defiance and banishment to hell is simply free will. They are described as not simply "evil," whatever that means, but rather proud.

What you mean by "free will" sounds like what I read an imam criticize as "freedom to sin." I think God supposedly replicated "His" own free will to humans so that they would be able to choose for goodness and be free to be creative because they had the ability to identify and pursue goodness in their creativity. Imo, all that it means to resist submitting to God is that people/angels resist seeking out goodness in their creative acts. Instead, they become cynical and lose faith in goodness as being good and thus decide to become destructive instead of constructive. I believe I have deciphered a logic to why pride is considered sinful, but it's kind of a detour from this post.

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

That's funny. I would think that hell would consist exclusively of social structure with various forms of short-term pleasure followed by agonizing dead-ends. Social structure in hell would be like an infinitely complex bureaucracy with the ability to endless channel you into misery by your own volition as a result of unfavorable choice structuring.

 

And people who would not submit to an omnipotent god would submit to some random bureaucracy why?

 

What you mean by "free will" sounds like what I read an imam criticize as "freedom to sin." I think God supposedly replicated "His" own free will to humans so that they would be able to choose for goodness and be free to be creative because they had the ability to identify and pursue goodness in their creativity. Imo, all that it means to resist submitting to God is that people/angels resist seeking out goodness in their creative acts. Instead, they become cynical and lose faith in goodness as being good and thus decide to become destructive instead of constructive. I believe I have deciphered a logic to why pride is considered sinful, but it's kind of a detour from this post.

 

Isn't god described as being incapable of sin? This of course is why some people want to hold him as a moral standard, but if he were capable of sin they'd have to admit a moral standard beyond god and they cannot accept that idea. Yet if god is incapable of choosing to sin, does he really have free will?

[lemur]

And people who would not submit to an omnipotent god would submit to some random bureaucracy why?

Well, I think the ultimatum posed in the OP is the initial question that would draw you into such a bureaucracy. Did you happen to note the inherent trap in the original question? The choice was to either accept arbitrary authority and worship (even insincerely) or be condemned to eternal damnation. By accepting arbitrary authority, you give the devil permission to lie and/or otherwise trick, manipulate, or trap you into accepting condemnation. Satan's only restriction is that he can't deny your free will. Even after you sign the proverbial contract that sells your soul, you always have the free will to go against the contract. Of course, he wants you to believe that by going against the contract you have committed yet another sin and are that much more trapped in hell. So you would submit to the random bureaucracy because you would accept whatever legitimation it offered at face-value without questioning it. You would basically be caught in a bogus contract by your own ignorance of the law.

 

Isn't god described as being incapable of sin? This of course is why some people want to hold him as a moral standard, but if he were capable of sin they'd have to admit a moral standard beyond god and they cannot accept that idea. Yet if god is incapable of choosing to sin, does he really have free will?

I like the story of the flood of Noah because after God floods the Earth out of anger for the sinfulness of mankind, "He" is said to have realized his mistake and vowed never to slaughter them again, and the rainbow following the flood is supposed to be a symbol of his promise. So I think this can be interpreted as God sinning and feeling sorry for his own sin against himself and promising not to do it again. Also, if humans are capable of sinning, then God must because humans are supposedly "made in His image." I don't think the point of God is to set a moral standard but just to emit enlightenment in various ways that help humans make choices about how to use their free will.

 

 

 

[Edtharan]

What if his moral alignment were never revealed to you, and this god would never allow you to know? Would you still worship it?

As I said: "based on the first paragraph".

 

Besides, the moral alignmnet of an entity would be revealed by their actions and inactions. So it would be imposible for such an entity to hide their moral alignment as they are the controlling entity in the universe (being all knowing and all powerful).

 

Being omnipotent and omniscient, the God would know everything and would have the power to prevent any evil (without violating free will as well). So the existence of any evil at all, would be proof that such an entity is not moral.

 

So you could choose a physical hell over a mental hell?

Actually it is the acceptance of the lesser of two Hells. In the one where I worship the evil God for eternity I would have nothing to offset the suffering, in fact the experiences designed to be pleasurable there would only act to increase the suffering I would experience. However, in the Hell you get for not worshipping, I would have the knowledge that I acted morally to offset the suffering, thus to me it would be the less of the two Hells.

 

On top of that, the worshipping of the God would be a loss of my free will, something that I consider extremely valuable and central to who I am. Thus to worship the God would be to reject this of my self and so I would not even considerer it to be "me" that does the worshipping.

 

So to worship the evil God, I would have to reject my morality, reject something that I consider essential to who I am and end up with greater suffering. To me, worshipping such an entity would be worse than Hell (and thus I would, with morals and free will, choose Hell).