Statesboro, GA, USA
So worship is different depending on he nature of god and who he is, but who is he Stephen? What is his nature exactly?
I donít mean what do you think his nature is or what some dead essayist or biblical scholar thinks God is, I donít mean what you believe heís like either, I mean what do you know beyond a reasonable doubt about your god?
How do you know how to worship a god whose nature you do not know?
He has revealed his nature in a myriad of ways, generally through the created order (ranging from the very fact that you are able to reason and have knowledge, to the beauty and complexity of nature). There is the Bible through which the thoughts and actions of God have been mediated to us. There is the human conscience and emotions through which something of God may be known. There is the the Holy Spirit through which God's nature is more clearly ascertained by a believer.
But when you say, "I don't mean what you believe he's like either, I mean what you know beyond a reasonable doubt", the first thing that comes to mind is that true knowledge may be doubted. The question of whether that doubt is reasonable is the heart of the debate. You can always reply to someone's "know", with a "you think". And the evidence is always filtered through one's chosen view of the world. That doesn't mean that one view is not more reasonable than another. It simply means that we're not unbiased, or without precommitment, for various reasons.
There are true beliefs that are empirically proven, and others which are not and yet accepted. To ask for "proof" of God in this manner reduces him to a physical property of nature, or something like that. No matter what history or experiential data is given, it can always be chalked up to delusion if one so wishes. I get the feeling that when you ask me for evidence, you are asking for a simplistic test-tube answer. But there are many things you yourself doubtless believe which cannot be proved with such a decisive test either.
The whole subjectivity part of belief, is something that Kirkegaard explored quite well, though I can't admit to being a complete fideist as he was. The heart, or the seat of one's will and emotions, where things like devotion and betrayal are born, is a powerful lens (either distorting or clarifying) through which to observe "objective" evidences. The prophet Jeremiah once wrote that "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?". Along with these kinds of sayings, is the assertion by the Apostle Paul (in the book of Romans) that all are without excuse, having recognized in some fashion the divine attributes through the Creation. The tendency of sin, has been to try and saw off the limb we're standing on.
This kind of insight is not to be wielded with a rough hand, or unkindly, or without the understanding that there is such a thing as honest doubt. But it does lead to the conclusion that hardened unbelief is not so honest. As the Existentialists have demonstrated, human will may quite transcend rationality and morals. (Have you ever read 'Notes From Underground' by Dostoevsky?)
In conclusion the Believer may always say "You're in rebellion", and the unbeliever may retort "You're in delusion". I'm not sure that I can fix that problem, or dissolve the impasse, other than to suggest that all chosen worldviews have their dialectical tensions and cognitive dissonance to deal with. It's just that some are more profound than others. The question is which set of difficulties are damning, and which are merely mystifying. The Psalms tell us that "The Fool has said in his heart there is no God". I don't want to be a fool, and I'm sure that neither do you. But which view of things even allows man the dignity of foolishness, versus canceling him out altogether as a beautiful accident?