Should we worship them? And when we are visited by advanced ET?

Finally, a solution to the Great Filter. The humanity is saved for today.

Should we worship them? And when we are visited by advanced ET? — Down The Rabbit Hole

A good question. Makes us rethink what worship actually is and what purpose it serves? Clearly, since there's a difference between an absolute God and a relative God, worship may need to be recalibrated accordingly, from fanatical devotion to a more measured form of respect.

the Great Filter — pfirefry

@Down The Rabbit Hole

Extraterrestrials, provided they're relatively good, powerful, and knowledgeable, would need to be treated as relative gods. The same goes for them too.

$\exists$ [Not the OOO God (absolute deity), but the ooo god (relative deity)]

Ooo my God!

We can, faithfully to both science, as seems to be imperative in modern society, and God, say with 100% certainty that there is a god or even more (the latter seems to be the actual case). They are absolutely there. How else can it be? Where did our universe or the laws governing it come from? Exactly! Not from natural laws. Stephen Hawking wanted to know the mind of God. He wasn't able to read it yet...

Finally, a solution to the Great Filter — pfirefry

What is the Great Filter? Is God a filter?

A good question. Makes us rethink what worship actually is and what purpose it serves? Clearly, since there's a difference between an absolute God and a relative God, worship may need to be recalibrated accordingly, from fanatical devotion to a more measured form. — Agent Smith

The Queen of England is treated as a demigod - riches, rituals, songs, and even the final say on whether bills become law. Surely advanced humans or ET could be worshiped in at least the same way.

The Queen of England is treated as a demigod - riches, rituals, songs, and even the final say on whether bills become law. Surely advanced humans or ET could be worshiped in at least the same way. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What is worship?

The emperor of Japan was considered a deity, untill people actually heard him speak on the radio, to declare Japan's surrender. How disappointed they must have been!

What is worship? — Agent Smith

To honour or show reverence for (usually god/s).

Support for the Queen is consistently above 80%. Much more than the percentage of us Brits that believe in let alone worship god/s.

To honour or show reverence for (usually god/s).

Support for the Queen is consistently above 80%. Much more than the percentage of us Brits that believe in let alone worship god/s. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The statistics are intriguing.

I don't think God/gods should be worshipped. They should be treated with respect though.

[Not the OOO God (absolute deity), but the ooo god (relative deity)] — Agent Smith

I can't see much difference between OOOGod and Ooogod. Except between OOG and oog. What's the difference between OG and og?

The statistics are intriguing.

I don't think God/gods should be worshipped. They should be treated with respect though. — Agent Smith

A lot of the worshipping for both god/s and the Queen is tradition.

An all-powerful god would know how much we love them without the need for worship, and an all-loving god would love us either way.

I can't see much difference between OOOGod and Ooogod. Except between OOG and oog. What's the difference between OG and og? — Cornwell1

Sit down my dear fellow and describe these peculiar circumstances. — Sherlock Holmes

"Chalk powder in his hair... an encounter in a classroom... red stains on shoes... forgot to close the strawberry jam jar... mint odor... brushed teeth... false mustache... trails of omnipotence... small indication of omnipresence... seems a nice guy... must be triplex o..."

We can, faithfully to both science, as seems to be imperative in modern society, and God, say with 100% certainty that there is a god or even more (the latter seems to be the actual case). They are absolutely there. How else can it be? Where did our universe or the laws governing it come from? — Cornwell1

This is just a naked/textbook argument from ignorance. From the fact that we do not presently have a non-theistic explanation for some X, it does not follow that it therefore has a theistic explanation.

And in any case, God is not any sort of an explanation anyways: explanations account for unknowns in terms of knowns, they do not merely substitute one unknown for another unknown.

This is just a naked/textbook argument from ignorance. From the fact that we do not presently have a non-theistic explanation for some X, it does not follow that it therefore has a theistic explanation. — Seppo

Well, it depends on how deep the explanation goes. If there is nothing left to explain, then the last question is: where did the reality I describe come from. What else than gods can be the answer? How can such ingenious structure exist by itself?

What else than gods can be the answer? How can such ingenious structure exist by itself? — Cornwell1

The point is, from the fact that we currently lack an answer, it doesn't follow that there is no such answer. For the theistic explanation to follow, the very possibility of a non-theistic alternative must be ruled out (not merely presently lacking).

The point is, from the fact that we currently lack an answer, it doesn't follow that there is no such answer. For the theistic explanation to follow, the very possibility of a non-theistic alternative must be ruled out (not merely presently lacking). — Seppo

But what if you have found a self consistent, coherent irreducible answer? Where does the stuff you think you have an answer about come from? It can't be it's own answer.

explanations account for unknowns in terms of knowns, they do not merely substitute one unknown for another unknown. — Seppo

:clap: :up: That was well worded and packed with meanging!

One of the posters, a while ago, remarked that the "worship of God", if you really think about it, "is the worship of ignorance"; not a new idea (god of the gaps), but still a particular turn of phrase manages to clarify a position in a much better way than a scholarly essay.

The relative God exists alright! — Agent Smith

The best among us is but human, although I would agree that Tom Brady is a God.

To equate the far end of a normal curve to a celestial being is beyond philosophy IMHO and a fantasy.

How can such ingenious structure exist by itself? — Cornwell1

Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do and die.

which is why its ludicrous when people claim that God is somehow a superior explanation, or is the best or only explanation for something... God isn't an explanation at all! Invoking God is to abandon the search for an explanation.

:up:

Have you come across this statement: A theory that explains everything explains nothing! I can't find the person who said it, sorry.

Do you have any idea why?

The relative God exists alright!
— Agent Smith

The best among us is but human, although I would agree that Tom Brady is a God.

To equate the far end of a normal curve to a celestial being is beyond philosophy IMHO and a fantasy. — jgill

Relative god, not an absolute God. I have made adjustments to the status of a relative god - brought Him down a notch or two - and that, in my humble opinion, should satisfy all parties involved.

Wasn't that Popper? If a proposition or theory doesn't exclude anything- if it has no conditions under which it can be falsified- then it is, in a certain sense, vacuous: its consistent with any and all state of affairs or pieces of evidence, and its truth is indistinguishable from its falsity.

Makes sense. :up:

Hi Agent Smith,

I think your argument can be laid out like so.

1. If the most powerful person, the most knowledgeable person, the most moral person exist, and they can form a triumvirate, then a relative God exists.
2. The most powerful person, the most knowledgeable person, and the most moral person exist, and they can form a triumvirate.
3. Therefore, a relative God exists. (MP 1,2)

While this is a valid argument, I do not think it is sound. Premise 1 especially seems objectionable. God's intentions and actions are good, and therefore a relative God's intentions and actions must also aim at goodness. Just because a triumvirate includes the most moral person in the world does not mean the actions and intentions of the triumvirate will be moral. The difference is that God's qualities- omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotence- are cohesive. What I mean is that they are always in agreement with one another, and therefore the intentions and actions of God are always good. The specific two qualities that must agree are morality and power. If they disagree, then the triumvirate will still act evilly. Take the following example. Say, Albert Einstein, Mother Teressa, and Hitler all existed simultaneously. Let's say they were respectively the most knowledgeable, moral, and powerful people in the world. If the three created a triumvirate, they would be considered the relative God. However, Mother Teressa and Hitler are likely not in agreement on actions to take. Because Hitler is the most powerful person in the world, he has the power to override Mother Teressa's desires. As a result, Hitler will act in an immoral way. These actions go wildly against the nature of God, making the triumvirate far from a relative God.

I think an adjustment could be made to the argument, specifically to premise one. You could either change it to:
1. If the most powerful moral person, the most knowledgeable person, the most moral person exist, and they can form a triumvirate, then a relative God exists.
Or,
2. If the most powerful person, the most knowledgeable person, the most moral person exist, and the moral and powerful person agree and they can form a triumvirate, then a relative God exists.

These adjustments to your argument ensure that the powerful person will aim to act morally, meaning the triumvirate can aim at good just as God does.