god the mob boss

Your Christian theology isn't remotely correct. As far as other Abrahamic traditions go, Jews have very little interest in discussing the afterlife. Muslims, from my understanding, will say that you face justice after you die, but how much and in what way is unknown.

Trying to be as factually accurate as possible is important to making reasoned arguments even if it is not an error in logic.

But isn't there at least a logical inconsistency when the claim that god is all merciful and completely just, yet he uses coercion into making his subjects worship him?

A theist would reply that it isn't coerced, because we have "freewill". Allowing us to choose sin or salvation itself would be considered consistent with omnibenevolence (all-lovingness), as God could easily choose to punish all sinners by condemning them to hell  immediately , yet, offers a way out through repentance and observation of his commands.

It falls apart if you're sceptical about freewill, or, as Dr Bo points out, if you don't even believe in God.

You can make the argument, but whenever dealing with any form of unfalsifiable magic, such as the power or nature of a god, anyone can make sh*t up to address any inconsistency. This is precisely why I left religious debate and focused on reason and logic.

I'd say your first point is valid which something to say more about the nature of analogies; no matter how strong an analogy is we can sit here and poke holes into it. One difference is all it really takes to conclude that an analogy is weak, which is why I don't like using them much.

The second point however is a bit problematic, like are we really going to sit here and say that torturing people for eternity in the worst ways imaginable for a  finite  'crime' is caring for humanity? 

The third point is simply an assertion that it isn't coercion because we have free will? I do not personally believe we do have free will, but even if we do, it is still coercion; god is giving you an ultimatum and a morally reprehensible one at that. How is this any different from a leader who asks you to believe in everything he says else you'll be tortured in prison?

For the fourth point, sure the nature of demand is different which like I said earlier, easy to point to differences in and call it weak; fair enough. However, all these points were aimed to answer whether the the analogy was valid or not, but nothing was attempted to answer the second question, which is the more important one for me

[To Theo]

The second point however is a bit problematic, like are we really going to sit here and say that torturing people for eternity in the worst ways imaginable for a  finite  'crime' is caring for humanity? 

I guess you could say that, given time to repent and turn to God, a person who refuses to do so simply lacks the required virtue to get into heaven. Instead, they've made a choice to follow Satan. Thus, hell is appropriate a punishment, since if after all your years of living, you didn't turn back then, when could you possibly be expected to start?

The third point is simply an assertion that it isn't coercion because we have free will? I do not personally believe we do have free will, but even if we do, it is still coercion; god is giving you an ultimatum and a morally reprehensible one at that. How is this any different from a leader who asks you to believe in everything he says else you'll be tortured in prison?

If God really wanted to coerce people, he'd do it on Earth - e.g. every time someone said "I don't believe in God", they'd receive say, a painful electric shock to the heart. Eventually people would catch onto the scheme and profess their believe in God.

He doesn't do this, however, as it would encourage people to insincerely profess faith in order to avoid pain. But God doesn't want that. So he presents an offer - follow me and be rewarded, or don't, and be condemned. But that's not an immediate threat - it's a decision between two choices, one good, one bad.

(yeah it's pretty flimsy, but theists are at pains to emphasise that God isn't forcing people.)

For the fourth point, sure the nature of demand is different which like I said earlier, easy to point to differences in and call it weak; fair enough. However, all these points were aimed to answer whether the the analogy was valid or not, but nothing was attempted to answer the second question, which is the more important one for me

I did answer it, though perhaps you missed it:

"Obviously, the argument assumes that God ought to be worshipped, and he is thus justified in condemning people if they don't. "He created you" intuitively isn't sufficient justification, even if we can defuse the 'mob boss' objection." 

Basically, I think a theist would have to say more about the relationship between one's creation of a life, and one's supposed 'right' to control that life. Simply asserting "I created you" isn't enough, as the same comment could be made regarding parents who abuse their children.

In terms of fallacies, 'no fallacies' is a decent answer, but at a push I'd say non sequitur.

If God really wanted to coerce people, he'd do it on Earth - e.g. every time someone said "I don't believe in God", they'd receive say, a painful electric shock to the heart. Eventually people would catch onto the scheme and profess their believe in God.

He doesn't do this, however, as it would encourage people to insincerely profess faith in order to avoid pain. But God doesn't want that. So he presents an offer - follow me and be rewarded, or don't, and be condemned. But that's not an immediate threat - it's a decision between two choices, one good, one bad.

(yeah it's pretty flimsy, but theists are at pains to emphasise that God isn't forcing people.)

I know you're trying to play devil's advocate here, but the idea of asking people, or try to make people do an action; any action no matter how benign it is by threatening them, is coercion period. You say that god would want his worship to be sincere, which entails that worship due to fear is not, but so is worship in hope of getting a reward; both are insincere. Further, if he really wants his subjects to worship him sincerely, then maybe do not threaten people with eternal punishment in the first place...? Lastly, you talk about the immediate threat, again this has nothing to do with the nature of coercion. If the effects of the ultimatum were tomorrow or after a year or 2 decades, it is still coercion; especially in the case of religion where you'll be resurrected to ensure you'll see the end of it, so ultimately this cosmic threat will be immediate at some point, not that it makes any difference.

Coercion works based on seen threat. The mob boss appears before your eyes, telling you to your face that you either rob that bank, or suffer horrendous torture. 

God, on the other hand, does not reveal himself directly to humans. By leaving his existence up-in-the-air, the pressure to believe in him is removed. Unbelievers do not walk around fearing hell, for example. That is the result of the freewill that we have; it doesn't just extend to literal freedom of belief, but also God's decision not to 'appear' physically. Thus, there is no coercion in any real sense, just a trade-off.

Also for theists, it's just a reasonable compromise. Accept the truth of God and dedicate a finite time period to serving him in exchange for eternal reward, or enjoy your finite time on Earth and suffer an eternal punishment. It's a mere thing to serve God, so one who refuses to do so, as aforementioned, lacks the required virtue to enter heaven, and is thus deserving of hell.

God also knows people's hearts, owing to his omniscience. He does not wish for people to simply worship him with the hope of getting into heaven, as someone who does that is likely to be a superficial worshipper who does not lead the life God intends. Hence, converting people to religion aims to meet their emotional needs, by developing a connection with God. If someone dishonestly served, but secretly sinned, God would know about it (although this causes problems for those who agree with Pascal's Wager).

I'm not sure if you're a theist or playing the role so damn well, because you speak exactly how an apologist would. Anyhow, I'm not sure how many times I have to say this; I feel like I'm getting trolled by these responses. But coercion does not need to be immediate nor needs any sort of immediate physical manifestation to be considered coercion. The mob boss doesn't have to appear to your face, he can simply send you a message; conflate this with *insert any holy text* and you'd have the same result. And the punishment is not seen either, again not that any of this matters anyway but two can play this game I suppose.

Non-believers do not fear hell because they do not believe in the existence of any god, I have no idea how asserting we have free will necessarily means there is no coercion involved with a cosmic entity, but it is involved with other human beings???

Whether theists find this absurd proposition reasonable or not is simply irrelevant

But coercion does not need to be immediate nor needs any sort of immediate physical manifestation to be considered coercion. The mob boss doesn't have to appear to your face, he can simply send you a message; conflate this with *insert any holy text* and you'd have the same result. And the punishment is not seen either, again not that any of this matters anyway but two can play this game I suppose.

and

Whether theists find this absurd proposition reasonable or not is simply irrelevant

The underlying point is that the 'mob boss' analogy won't convince theists; they'll continuously claim that God is so different from any human being that any analogy you make will inevitably be unfair to him.

Non-believers do not fear hell because they do not believe in the existence of any god, I have no idea how asserting we have free will necessarily means there is no coercion involved with a cosmic entity, but it is involved with other human beings???

If you hold a gun to my head and say "rob this bank or I shoot", I can't deny that. So there is coercion involved, as there is an undeniable threat to my well-being.

If a theist says, "serve God or you'll go to hell", that  is  a deniable threat. I could say "ha, there is no God" or "hmm, but there is no hell." So I don't feel 'pressured' to serve God in the same way I would feel pressured to rob the bank.

I'm not sure if you're a theist or playing the role so damn well, because you speak exactly how an apologist would.

Ha, looks like I'm even better than I thought.

I know this claim is aimed at the credentials over which the person is basing their claim on; and I have a pretty good guess where this line of questioning will lead to-somewhere along the lines of: if you believe everything written in any holy text then I am justified to believe in say something like Harry Potter. Fair enough, but this sort of dodges the question altogether; in this hypothetical scenario we are not examining whether god actually exists or not, but rather assuming he did and assuming what he said say in the Bible is true, would it make sense to act in this way to non-believers and still call himself just, merciful,etc.

To me, spending any more time on "either worship me or suffer a fate worse than death in hell for eternity." is a waste of time.