Evidence for God from Science

If I remember correctly, I once heard WLC asked if he would still serve God if God had a different morality....

E.G one that would even be considered evil.

WLC said something along the lines of that he would still worship God as God is our creator etc.

So I"m asking this to any Christians here. Would you still worship God if he had a different morality?

Edit: WLC - william lane craig.

Nessa wrote:If I remember correctly, I once heard WLC asked if he would still serve God if God had a different morality....

E.G one that would even be considered evil.

WLC said something along the lines of that he would still worship God as God is our creator etc.

So I"m asking this to any Christians here. Would you still worship God if he had a different morality?

I know you don't mean to but the question is yet another version of Euthyphro's dilemma which was long ago shown to be false. God changing morality as akin to God declaring he is no longer God. It is self-contradictory and meaningless.

That wouldn't make him God anymore, so, yeah...
No.

Perhaps I'm looking at this from a different angle and I'm not sure who WLC is?
We know God doesn't change; He doesn't change morality. He is constant and unchanging. So from that perspective, from a perfect and infinite understanding then anything that deviates from Gods nature is no longer God.
Totally agree.
But we don't agree. Christians; as well meaning as we are have some very differing ideas of what God's purpose is. Our perception of God's morality pertaining to many different and difficult situations has far reaching implications depending on denomination and personal belief.
There are those of us that believe that God saves through no other means but by faith and others that believe that our earthly works is what saves us. Whilst this is a division between our faith it is also not a belief that divides our faith, theologically depending upon which is correct or believed it presents a contrast in God's nature. It paints at the core a quite contradictory nature of God. But yet we as Christians unite such differing beliefs.
Even when we look at the NT the religious elite had a very rigid idea of God which was based on legality of faith. Jesus turned everything on its head.
What was known was surpassed.
By a greater, in depth understanding of God.
But still an imperfect one, on our part.
In the centuries since we have argued and murdered and divided the faith through a myriad of what WE believe best represents God.
We seem to uphold emphatically that God's way, His morals never change. We know this too be true theologically but yet we still can't quite agree exactly what that means.
That's not God's flaw.
It is ours.

From that perspective, from our flawed understanding then we are always at risk of realizing that God's way, His morals may not align with our preconceived idea of what God should do or how He should act.
This has nothing to do with God but everything to do with us.
People have been so indoctrinated with mans understanding of what God would and should do that we have substituted it for divine truth.
And people have lost their faith over such. A while back I was reading from a website dedicated to ex believers. There were stories from all types of people and quite a number from ex pastor/preachers. The underlining theme that run through was that they were turned away from a belief that God could not or should not have acted in a certain way. Whether that was within scripture or in their personal life.

In that respect Nessa's question is on point.
Whether it's theologically correct or not; believers are faced often with the reality of God that never corresponded to what they were taught or believed.
What we believe to be immoral and to be evil. Unnecessary suffering and death. Pain and neglect. Is just part of the human experience, an experience that sometimes for reasons unknown God works into His plan.
Christians are faced everyday with our preconceived notions of God's morals and goodness and we can question our faith in really tough times.
It takes faith to work through it. To realise that our idea of God is limited and that God is in control and a perfect navigator.
To understand that what we think is moral and/or evil is coming from a child's perspective in relation to the infiniteness of God.
In times of questioning and turmoil that's when the beauty of faith shines through.

Two blondes agreeing that something illogical is logical. Why am I not surprised?

I wouldn't say my question is meaningless. I think it has merit.

This is what Dawkins says...

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully

I think Mel was getting to the heart of my question dispite the fact the question itself may be illogical.

Would we still worship God regardless of what he did or how we saw him?

I think of abraham sacrificing his only son. Yes, he reasoned that God could bring him back from the dead but to an onlooker, it could have looked like a very evil deed indeed.

I believe the bible says at one point that the thought of child sacrifice never entered God's mind.

Yet Abraham was obedient, thinking he was about to actually kill his son though we know that was never God's true intention for him to carry it through.

We don't know what went through Abraham's mind but obviously, even tho he was asked to do what seemed like an evil thing.... He did it. He held nothing back and worshipped God.

And that was really my point. Would God deserve to be worshipped no matter what simply because he created everything including us? And should we still worship him.

Dawkins would say no.

Would we want to?

Dawkins is describing something other than God.

The god that he created in his mind, the straw man god, isn't worthy of worship. But his idea is not God.

How can God be anything less than perfect, and still be God?

Are you saying God is perfect cos he has to be?

Or God is perfect simply cos he just is?

Nessa wrote:Are you saying God is perfect cos he has to be?

Or God is perfect simply cos he just is?

I think I'd say that logically, anything less than completely perfect in all ways, is not God.

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:Are you saying God is perfect cos he has to be?

Or God is perfect simply cos he just is?

I think I'd say that logically, anything less than completely perfect in all ways, is not God.

But is it possible for God to be less than perfect even though he is?

Did the God who made this world have to be perfect?

Ness? Have you read DS?

Storyteller wrote:Ness? Have you read DS?

You are actually the second person to recommend that to me. I guess I assume it would be way over my head. But maybe I will give it a go.

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:Are you saying God is perfect cos he has to be?

Or God is perfect simply cos he just is?

I think I'd say that logically, anything less than completely perfect in all ways, is not God.

But is it possible for God to be less than perfect even though he is?

Did the God who made this world have to be perfect?

No to the first. It's kids like the question, "can God make a square triangle?" It's an illogical question.

Yes to the second. In order to be God, he must be perfect in all ways, or he wouldn't be God.

I'm not sure if I'd do it any justice trying to explain it though. Jac or Byblos would be able to explain it better. We all were trying in vain to explain this to Kenny.

Nessa wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Ness? Have you read DS?

You are actually the second person to recommend that to me. I guess I assume it would be way over my head. But maybe I will give it a go.

It may take you a few times to understand it. But if I can grasp it, you certainly can. The subject is difficult to understand, but Jac did a great job "dumbing it down" for people like me.