TheArranger:

What if i don't want to worship him? Why is there a punishment attached to not worshipping him?

It was a response to another user. You can see you're not the only one i quoted in my last post

NnennaG6:

You people haven't demonstrated that a perfect being can only act from need.

NnennaG6:

This is easily obviated with the plausible presupposition that the total goodness of the world is a sum rather than an average.

UyiIredia:


Mechonu there.

MuttleyLaff:


Man became god the moment after eating the fruit. Hate filled the vacuum, after the departure and/or absence of love. Evil filled the vacuum, after the departure and/or absence of good. Harshness proceeded and emanated because the ground was cursed due to man. There is no evil in God's Nature.

johnydon22:
Hahahaha guy calm down.

NnennaG6 is a very brilliant person and she stays in Enugu too, i am dying to discuss with her in person.

UyiIredia:


I don't understand the need to create God in an image. God is immaterial.

UyiIredia:
Your Christianity never ceases to amaze me. How does evil exist if it is not part of God's Nature?

budaatum:

An image, an idea of, a thing as a concept, materialised. If God is "immaterial" why have we bothered to create images of it?

MuttleyLaff:
I knew before posting my comment, when staring at how to conspicuously put it as "God's Nature" that you would try and plan to slant it. Anyway and fyi, intrinsically, there is no evil in God.

johnydon22:
LOL. Acting out of love is also an expression of need. Need to express love.

primarily all actions falls down to a need.

For something to create anything, there must be at least a need to create, a desire to create. that is the point.

A creator who doesn't have a desire to create, won't.

a creator who does have a desire to create therefore has a need to satisfy this desire.

So, for the fact that this universe exists is incompatible with the idea that we are created by a creator who doesn't have a desire to create.

Maxi3k:
I think gods are created in the minds of desperate individuals

IAmSabrina:

That isn't really how goodness works though. Auschwitz wasn't good because there was some good there. It would have been better if it did not exist at all.

NnennaG6:

Unlike Auschwitz, there are many things whose existence is more good than bad, with the implication that it's better for them to exist than not to exist. Hence their existence improves the world.

UyiIredia:
Then there cannot be evil in the world God created. Otan!

IAmSabrina:

"More good than bad" implies you're taking an overall average of some situation, which is what you just said I shouldn't do

MuttleyLaff:
Why wouldnt or couldnt there. Evil, afterall, is the absence of good. Similar manner, darkness is the absence of light. There really isnt darkness, it is just an absence of light. So, evil is the absence and/or departure of the God factor

UyiIredia:
There is no evil in God. That is why evil doesn't exist in God's creation.

NnennaG6:

No, it implies that the world is a better place because of its existence. If something is generally good in spite of some imperfections, then it still contributes positively to the world. And how good or bad the world is depends (I'm suggesting) on the sum of what exists.

UyiIredia:


People feel a strong need to materialise something even if it's not there. But why the quotes? Don't you think God is immaterial?

IAmSabrina:

I'm sorry, I don't understand how something can be generally good when it is literally infinitely worse than God.

NnennaG6:

"I don't see how an integer can be positive when it's infinitely less than an infinite quantity."

johnydon22:
Whom exactly is such demonstration meant for?

Aren't you implying a need for self validation here?

MuttleyLaff:
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power:
for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
- Revelation 4:11
.

Zither:


If I tended a rose garden for the love of rose flowers would I be pursuing self-validation?

johnydon22:
He has a need to create then he literally has a need then.

bloodofthelamb:


Is it necessary that I must have a need to express who I am?

johnydon22:
Yes, a need to express who you are.

TheArranger:
The creative process seems inexorably tied to needs. This process surges as a result of the need to survive, compete or for expression. (It can also happen by accident...)

An omni-x being, or God, by definition has no needs. One might argue that creating would go against his nature. From the Abrahamic standpoint, why would said beings create inferior beings to worship him?

One could attempt an argument as follows:

1. An omni-x being has no needs or reason to create anything

2. An omni-x being would simply be.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, if the universe was created, the author was an entity with a need. (Or created it by accident...)

This conclusion would point to a being quite different from the omni-x God theists describe.

In fact, this omni-x God seems like a classic post hoc explanation for a reality we find difficult to explain.

What do you think?

bloodofthelamb:


No, I am just living. I am good to you, because that is who I am. I have no need to be good to you. I am just being myself to you.

I see no need here.

johnydon22:
Nope, you are tending to a need to express that love.

GoodMuyis:
I Love this line, it fits into the subject of infinite regression