Why did God create us? What's in it for him?
...to satisfy the need to create? Fair enough, but for the purpose of argument let's just say he has no needs.
Any thoughts appreciated from anyone...
God vs. the Bible
How God's Creation Discredits Christian Scripture
Author: John Armstrong
Author: John Armstrong
We all have a need to create. It's one of the driving forces of our being. Maybe we're chips off the old block in that respect.
Creation and the Parenting Dilemma by bil1yjoe
Re: Why Create? by johnarmstrong. We all have a need to create. It's one of the driving forces of our being. Maybe we're chips off the old block in that respect.
I agree; the desire to create is part of out nature. Next, let’s assume that as parents we actually desire a better life for our children. Thus we have created a Parenting Dilemma with some degree of responsibility on our part as parents.
Now let us look at what we have done and teach our children so they may have some chance at a better life. Once we have realized the implications we want to be consistent in our teachings even if we are not consistent with our actions. We do not want to overly reward and thus spoil the child who follows our commandments and cruelly punish the child who wants to exercise their free will.
If we are created by God then as our heavenly father he has some degree of responsibility for our development. Also as judge and creator of the world, God has a vested interest in our overall success. That is the way I view Creation and the Parenting Dilemma.
John are you thinking about becoming a father?
That's all
We were created for a reason. I believe that the premise of your question involves circular reasoning. If the Creator has no need for us, then why were we created? One could speculate that if He has no reason for us, we should not have been created. But we have been created! I do not believe we created ourselves, therefore, I think there is a distinction between the Creator and the created. This is my personal view and I realize others will may have other views. Indeed, there is a purpose for our creation, but I personally do not know what the full extent for the purpose of that creation will be.
As far as our possible future afterlife is concerned, it might be "fade to black, roll the credits". I do hope and pray it will not be that way, but the reality, none of us have no real control over what the Creator will do once we die, and that is a fact, people with their "religious opinions not withstanding. Religious opinions about this subject vary. Religious opinion should not always be construed as actual fact, especially involving the destiny of mankind! As for me, I will love the Creator and His creation no matter what happens.
May God's gift of reason light our way!
easy01 said : "I believe that the premise of your question involves circular
reasoning. If the Creator has no need for us, then why were we created?"
It doesn't neccesary follow that because we were created, then God needs us. In my view, God should be self sufficient - whether he created us or not he would have been exactly the same. Any change would indicate a Creator dependent on his creation and therefore defficient.
easy01 said : "One could speculate that if He has no reason for us, we should not have been created"
The reason that he has for us is for our benefit only, not for his. By definition an infinite, omnipotent being can't be benefited himself, right? It is purely out of his charity that we are here at all imho.
I'd suggest that God did not creat us. Evolution did.
God may have created the big bang, fine tuned the natural laws....and included evolution a sone of those laws, God may have even in some sense intended for the probability of of the arising of life of some sort in the cosmos. but we came about randomy via evolution and mutation and adaptation. God may or may not be aware of our existence or care about it. I suspect it is'nt aware of us OR is but does'nt care, because it's not some human like person that thinks, feels, etc like a human or other biological life in the natural universe.
The idea that God actually created us directly and had some reason for that is a theistic, not a deistic one. Allthough it isn't to far out of line with the reasoning of the classic deists of the enlightenment and the proto-deists. But since Deism is designed to evolve with new evidences and rational argument, and deism eventually became a seperate view of it's own from theism{a sit was once synonymous with a liberal form of theism}... modern deists need to evolve past the less informed knowledge and thinking of the classical liberally theistic deists.
At least, that's my take on it.
God created evolution{probably; IF God exists; here my own agnostic-deism shines through}, NOT us. evolution created us randomly like all other species.
In Reason:
Icono
God don't need no stinkin' reasons
<< I'd suggest that God did not creat us. Evolution did.>>
That suggestion reminds me of a book by philosopher James Rachels, Created From Animals. It also reminds me of my own theory of Creation, Intelligent Evolution, whereby G*D designed a creative system, with both rules and randomness, then turned it loose to see what kind of novelties it would come up with. Presumably, some kind of intelligent creature was intended, but the specific details were determined by the heuristic (searching) mechanism, rather than by "thus saith the Lord". In other words, it was design from the bottom-up instead of from the top-down.
As to the "reason" why G*D saw fit to create this world, I have no idea. In my limited understanding of such beyond-the-ken questions, an eternal infinite immortal deity could have no human emotions or physical needs to motive a purposeful activity. So I can only guess that creating (conceiving, imagining) is simply what an eternal Entity does, not for any particular reason, but just because . . . Creator is G*D's job description.
Eternity and Infinity encompass all possibilities, so the only "environment" for such an unbounded Being to interact with would be something created from within, out of all those endless possibilities. With that in mind, I imagine the Deity dreaming away through Eternity, creating phantasms willy-nilly, just as we do when we sleep. Each actor in the dream may exist for only a moment, but for us on the inside of the dream, it's a lifetime. We may be only transient patterns in a dream-story, but for that glorious moment the actor, strutting and fretting onstage, is the embodiment of G*D.
If this kind of metaphorical imagery is offensive to anyone's personal god-view, I will readily accede that I don't know what I'm talking about.
(..very beautiful metaphorical imagery Mr. gnomon..)
An infinite, all-powerful being has no need for the Universe, anything in it or outside it. So why did he create it/us? Why is there something rather than nothing, since it's all the same to God?
I'm not someone that looks for a reason behind every single little occurence, but I make an exception when it comes to the act of Creation. I find it hard to accept that we are here just as the result of an almighty, creative reflex.
If there isn't a reason or purpose behind Creation, then it was a random act. And randomness doesn't befit an intelligent Deity.
Who said God was infinate or all-powerful?
<< Who said God was infinate or all-powerful? >>
I did! If the creator or cause of this universe is not eternal and infinite, thus omnipotent by definition, then it doesn't fit my mental image of a world-maker. Such a limited entity would have to be a part of some larger entity, and so on ad infinitum. Not what you would call Ockham's Deity. So for the sake of simplicity and elegance, while I am creating my ideal Creator, I will just assume that S/he is the Ultimate and Final Cause, and be done with it.
Hey, it's my speculation! If you don't like it, you can kiss my assumption.
"a limited [god] would have to be a part of some larger entity, and so on ad infinitum"
I couldn't agree more. Limits and constraints are creations, and would have to be set by a bigger deity.
By the way, why do you write G*d as opposed to God?
<< By the way, why do you write G*d as opposed to God?>>
Just to be different.
To have my Deism and Secularism too.
Actually, I started using a unique spelling after being asked repeatedly by Atheists why I insisted on using the traditional, and provocative, term "God" in reference to what they assumed was merely a Deist metaphor for the great mysteries of life. I tried various other names, such as "George" and "Great Flying Spaghetti Monster", but the monosyllabic "G" word seems to sum-up my personal concept of a monistic deity best, while still conveying some general meaning to atheists and theists.
By then, I had developed a fairly detailed concept of the qualities and attributes that would fit the job description of a Prime Mover or Ultimate Substance. As an Agnostic I would have preferred an explanation more along the lines of the impersonal Multiverse Theory (e.g. Omniverse). But the job requirements seemed to require a little more personality and pizzaz than just an infinite regress of mundane reality (what you see is all you get). In short, the Ultimate Cause needs to be intelligent and intentional, in some sense, in order to explain the minds and wills we see emerging from the material creation. Beyond that, the speculations turn into fairy dust.
When I refer to "G*D" that unconventional asterisk tends to provoke the very question you asked. Which gives me the opportunity to explain that I conceive the Deity to be similar in some ways to traditional gods, but also different in important ways. Specifically, I want to avoid the automatic assumption that I am talking about the biblegod.
PS---In our private chats, I speak rather informally. "Say-hey, DOG, whassup?"
PPS---I also like to use the customized pronoun S/he instead of She / He / It to show a little respect without getting into gender issues. (I also tried "S-h-i-t", but that got blocked on some forums)
PPPS---The pronunciation of the asterisk in G*D is a tongue click, similar to the K!ung language in Africa. Try it!
She/He/It; S-H-I-T-!
Love it! LoL!!!
Laughed pretty hard when I read that.
Awesome!
Ditto what gnomon said. A universe-maker suggests to me to also be an omnipotent creator.
Why would God be anything other than omnipotent?
Just curious to know why you think he may be defficient in some way, if that IS what you believe.
QUOTE: Just curious to know why you think [God] may be defficient in some way, if that IS what you believe
It is what I believe, though I wouldn't use the term "deficient". I think that's putting it rather harshly. I don't expect perfection from God or omnipotence or omniscience or omnibenevolence. I'm grateful for what is, however much or little God can offer. God simply is the First Cause. To me, this only implies conscious and powerful enough to get the ball rolling.
I see the universe as a grand, though not perfect, machine, one that indicates a grand, though not perfect, Creator. Like any other machine, it has its occassional glitches. Rather than invent convoluted explanations like "sin" for these glitches, I simply accept them as glitches that we can hopefully learn to improve on with our own technology.
Take my own profession for example. Teeth are a part of this machine we call the human body. They even have little "shock absorbers" built in. These are tiny ligaments that connect the cementum of the root of the tooth to the connecting avelor bone of our jaws. These shock absorbers effectively absorb the stress we put on our teeth when we chew. This is just one piece of what I could go on about describing the entire process of tooth formation and function.
...and then there are wisdom teeth.
Normally these 3rd molars aren't a problem unless the patient has an underbite like I do. I had to have all four removed in two different operations. I the wild, these teeth would have damaged, possibly destroyed, my 2nd molars as they came out.
So my interpretation is that wisdom teeth + underbite = a glitch in the machine, one that we've learned to correct with our technology, sweet reason be praised.
So to sound a bit like Al Frankin's character, Stuart Smalley, God's not perfect, the universe isn't perfect and that's OK. It doesn't have to be perfect to be appreciated. ...though I think some women would like to a word with God regarding the miracle of childbirth.
God as a first cause suggests that he got the ball rolling and is doing something dramatically different now - he's served a purpose and may not care now or has expired.
For God to be active at the moment of creation followed by relative inactivity would give him a timeline. As far as i'm aware, modern science believes that both space and time came into being through the Big Bang. So it wouldn't make sense for a pre-existent creator to also be subject to time (or space), because if God has a timeline then it would also place him physically inside his created Universe. I don't think that neither his will nor his existence changes with time, so i disagree with him being defined as only the First Cause.
For some of us, wisdom teeth can be one of the trials of adulthood but does not lead me to deduce a 'slightly flawed but brilliant' creator. Instead of viewing a slight imperfection as one of God's shortcomings, our highly evolved, god-given minds that cured it are signs of his endless wisdom. Why didn't he just cut to the chase and make us physically perfect? I don't pretend to fully know, but without some difficulty occasionally befalling us there wouldn't be a chance for dentists, doctors, other professionals, friends and family to exercise their intellect and show compassion to fellow human beings. It's problems that develop the 'soul', not a problem-free environment. No pain, no gain.
Time as WE KNOW IT came into existence at the big bang, yes. That doe snot mean there is not kind of "time" beyond that, perhaps it is diffferent in some fashion.
As a hypothetical; lets say that as computers got more complext as we tune them and create them, and we created a SIMS game{google "sims" if you don't know it}, and the characters in that game started to develop some sort of or degree of self-awareness[theoretically this could happen], well...look at how time operate sin those games. a few days can pass in a game before one of our days is over. The characters/ the people in that game would perceive time similar to how we do in our universe. They might even eventually start scientific research and discover a whole universe as part of that game(if we so designed it that way), they might disocver that time(as they know it) came into existence at the big bamg of tof their universes beginning; then they might start postulating a creator of their universe. Their creator, one of us, actually exists, and exists in time that operates in a different fashion than in their game. Yet time still exists for the games creator.
So, hypothetically, time of some sort could exist outside our universe and operate differently than in our universe. Heck, time in our own universe is merely an illusion anyhow. Time is dictated by where we are situated in our own solar system. If we were to go to another galaxy or hell another planet in our solar system, time would be different, yet it still exists in a sense, it just is different. Have you ever watched a program and saw them speed up the tape to show the thounsands of moving cars and people,etc, in the night- they become like lazers, a blur, and they can fast forward or rewind the time so that several days can pass by your eyes in a mater of moments. So either time as whole doe snot exist, is an illusion, OR it exists everywhere, perhaps even outside our universe...perhaps even for the prime mover, it's just different.
Does that analogy make sense?
In Reason:
Bill
Without the flow of time, the Universe would never have got off the ground. It is the continuous sequence of events that allows everything in space to come into existence and then evolve. You can't define space without the progression of time, and you can't define time-flow without the progression of space.
If you give God temporal dimensions, like in the First Cause/prime mover hypothesis, then you neccesarily give him spatial dimensions too. So maybe he is currently playing SimUniverse with humans and aliens on his laptop. Either that or he transcends all definitions of x, y, z and time axes.
<< I don't expect perfection from God or omnipotence or omniscience or omnibenevolence.>>
In my personal view the First Cause must be "perfect" only in the sense of "whole", "complete", and "all-encompassing". For example, I would hesitate to call G*D "omnibenevolent". Instead, I would say that G*D is beyond Good and Evil. Here's an essay on that topic :
GODEVIL
http://home.mindspring.com/~johne84570/Godevil_A%20Complete%20Creator_09...
I recently read that article myself, though I red in "Deism Today" on the panendeism.org site, as linked to on the deist alliance site. I agree with it. But you want to know something intriguing, that concept has been thought up by many Deists beforehand. And the term, I don't know if it's been proposed beforehand, except to say that I know that I personally came up with that term "Godevil" and propsoed it to some people a few years back, before this article was written. LoL! But I love that term. Could call it Dark Deism or Realistic Deism, or heck...even Satanic Deism{I've met Satanists whom are Deists whom use similar terms and ideas}. LoL!
In Reason:
Bill
<< I see the universe as a grand, though not perfect, machine, one that indicates a grand, though not perfect, Creator. >>
That sounds like the Demi-Urge of Gnosticism, and Neo-Platonism.
Wikipedia - Demiurge :
"The world remains allegedly imperfect, however, because the demiurge had to work on pre-existing chaotic, indeterminate matter."
In that scenario matter is eternal and infinite, but the Creator is either co-eternal or temporal and finite. To me, that kind of limited deity doesn't sound much better than the anthropomorphic God of the Bible. The legitimate question arises, who created the Demiurge?
That's why I have developed my own G*D hypothesis in which the universe is ultimately made of immaterial information, which is a creative concept in the "mind" of an eternal, infinite, omnipotent, perfect Entity, who is all mind, all the time. If you don't, or can't believe in an immaterial, eternal "substance" though, then a perfect deity may not be a viable option. For me that divine substance is ordinary, mundane Information--the stuff that dreams and real-worlds are made of.
by bil1yjoe
The following is a generalization that I assembled it is not based upon any work that I have done. Its just one view out of many.
Our sun is about 5 billion years old. The earth is about 3.7 billion years old. I think that it is a myth to say that life as we know it was randomly formed. I do not totally reject the possibility of chemical evolution but I see nothing in our understanding of science demonstrates this (outside of theory).
5 billion years seems to be not enough time for non-replicating primordial elements to randomly form even a single 2,000 atom molecule. The estimated time for a single possible occurrence of such an event that would exceed the age of the earth and should in human terms (not in theory) be considered impossible (see Human Destiny, by Pierre Lecomte du Noüy (1883-1947).
If life did not start randomly; there must be a cause to the effect. But it did happen here on earth and however long it took that was just enough time; knowing this result we can justify the means to our theory. There is no need to prove anything with demonstrable evidence. The fact that we are here should be proof enough for both Theists and Atheists. The role of science is to explain the process. We know many things about organic chemistry. We do not know everything; do we need a chemist, or alchemist, working on our earth laboratory or can life got its beginnings from the first lightning strike into primordial soup. How about a hundred trillion lightning strikes to get the right combination of elements to bond. We do not know the precise cause or the origin to life. We understand most of the chemistry and can form theories.
I think that the point made by Pierre Lecomte du Noüy was that the origin of life not likely to be simply a random event. Given the estimated age of our earth and the huge improbability; there must have been a cause. But what; that is the big question. Was it intelligent design, extreme luck or something else? Our basic understanding of this life process, as a theory, is based upon the known facts. As science advances there will be new theories and new evidence that advances our understanding of the process.
It seems to me that we have been educated to choose God or science. Either way there is a leap of faith involved because none of us were there when life began. So make your choice if you must is it the unverifiable bible story that you prefer or the unverifiable scientific theory.
We sometimes create or do things without an expectation of a reward e.g. out of compassion or kindness for someone else. If this was the same reason an omnipotent God created us, it would seem more plausible than to satisfy his need to create as i believe god has no needs. However positive and fruitful the creative urge in us is, it is still an urge we have to fulfill, otherwise we are unfulfilled and may feel miserable.
(Forgive the deep, philosphical stuff, but...)
The need to create, or creative urge, is something the Creator would have himself invented and bestowed upon humans over millions of years of evolution. Having invented this 'urge' or desire to make things, why would he also be subject to it?
I think I used poor wording here. I too, believe the Creator is self-sufficent. The Creator does not need us, but we need Him.
Some people in the revealed religions believe they know factually why mankind was created. These "spiritual answers" seem to be all over the place! Some at this forum can use reason here too, but I still don't think any of us know the absolute answer for this question. Reason, of course, can be a good starting point, but this quality cannot be used as an "all to end all" regarding a question like this one.
At present, this is a question we probably cannot "factually" answer, one way or another. In that sense, I agree with you that there is no right or wrong answer to the question. In time, and I do not know how long, I personally believe we will know the reason why mankind was created.
If God created us in a purely selfless act, it naturally follows that we should try to honor this deed in some way. Given the generous nature of the selfless Creator, could he at least have conceivably transmitted a guidance to mankind?
You raise an interesting point. If we loved the Creator and His creation, and try not to define it "so precisely" like some of the revealed religions do, would this not be an acceptable way we could show our appreciation? The many groups in the world, indeed, are a "checkerboard" about this, so "Pascal's Wager" would definitely not apply! I would also like to make another point. Could we show that appreciation by not necessarily using the Bible or Koran, which is what many dogmatically religious people tend to do?
I have ancestors who may not have been exposed to the vaunted "King James Bible". I will not, for the life of me, paint 100% of them with a broad brush and declare to the world that all of them are damned. Yes, an outlook like this one sounds more reasonable, and it seems to make a little more sense to me. I am probably getting a little off the trail of your very good question, but perhaps some of the points I am making will spur further discussion.
May God's gift of reason light our way!
why did It do such a lousy job? Why create evil as god's partner?
Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot,
or he can but does not way to,
or he cannot and does not want to,
or lastly he can and wants to.
If he wants to remove evil, and cannot,
he is not omnipotent;
If he can, but does not want to,
he is not benevolent;
If he neither can nor wants to,
he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent;
Bit if God can abolish evil and wants to,
how does evil exist?
Why don't we have spellcheck?
NKHart
NKHart
I believe gnomon gives a useful anaology to that question of your below.
Actually, it's not even actually your's. That was allmost word for Word what greek philosopher Epicurus said. Alot of people forget that Epicurus himself was a deist{proto-deist}. The point of those questions of his was not to say god does'nt exist, but that we do not know what gods natur eis ultimately, and that given this, and given that god cannot, will not, or is unaware of "evil/suffering", that god is therefore not worth worshipping. I think it would'nt be very innacurate and It would be useful to call Epicurus as apathetic agnostic-deist.
IF God exists, god is beyond good & evil and all other dualities we humans{or other sentient biological creatures} have invented, beyond our biases. It's like saying that we are or should be aware of or care about the suffering of microscopic organisms and their little cultures, or the life of or inner world of or culture of individual microscopic organisms, cells, sub-atomic particles,etc.
In some ways I think of this force(god) IF it exists as beeing the highest thing on the cosmic{or beyond perhaps) food chain.
The very way those questions are phrased that you paraphrased are indicative of theistic presumptions about the Creator, even the very use of the word "he". The questions are usefil in one way, they disprove{or Epicurus long ago disproved} that God can be all "omni's"{omniscient, omnipotent, omnivenevolent,etc, as well as prescient} simultaneously. Obviously it is not, IF it exists. It could one of those things or perhaps a mixture of a couple but not ALL. Thing is, logically even if it is lacking in beeing OMNI is one or more of those things, the things it is NOT "OMNI" in are still probably of such a degree that it still is beyond human powers or even power that we can concieve of. With a force/beeing that vast, that immense, even it's weaknesses are beyond what we can concieve or at least far beyond anything we have or hope to have in power/ability ourselves.
So, as gnomon said, those questions are irrelvent. and they are such because they presuppose to much and they impose human biases onto this force we may choose to call 'God" the creator. They impose our biases and our dualisms, and if god does not bow to or is not of those dualisms and human ideas god cannot exist. Obviously god could still exist. The existence of god and the problem of suffering/evil[as we humans percieve such} are two completely seperate questions.
In Reason:
Icono
<< The really big question is: Who created god? And..... why did It do such a lousy job? >>
These questions are irrelevant for Deists. The biblegod however, who interacts with humans in realtime, is subject to all of those logical challenges.
Whether they know it or not, the G*D of most Deists exists beyond space-time and beyond good-evil. In Eternity there are no divisive dualities, only Unity and Harmony. Many people think of Eternity as merely a really long time. But in the philosophical sense, it is the absence of time. And that is a mind-boggling concept for temporal creatures.
As stated in the referenced essay, good and evil are subjective experiences of flesh & blood humans. An eternal, self-existent Being could only experience good and evil by partaking in the human existence in some manner. Christians believe that Jesus was god-in-the-flesh. But I suspect that the Creator experiences the ups and downs of reality thru He/r creation in a more holistic manner. By that I mean, each of us is connected to the whole. The creation is like God's little toe, it hurts when you stub it against the bedpost. We are like cells inside that toe-world. Any questions?
<< why did It do such a lousy job? >>
Some people accuse G*D of being a crummy creator, because they assume that the divine intention was perfection. But why would an Eternal, Infinite, presumably perfect deity want to reproduce perfection? Perfection is boring. What makes this world interesting* is the imperfections, contrasts, challenges, and conflicts.
But what if G*D is a monistic, static singularity---the ultimate, unchanging whole? Then the only way S/he could experience something different, for a change, would be to divide Unity into Duality. Good and Evil are inherent in an evolutionary world. For those at the top of the hierarchy, who are happy with the status quo, any change could only have negative consequences. And vice-versa for those at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder.
For those of us in the middle, it could go either way. And that, as they say, is why we play the game. Yet an Omnipotent game creator has an advantage over us creatures, S/he can be both a spectator, and all of the players at the same time. Wouldn't that be fun?
* An ancient Chinese curse said, "may you live in interesting times".
I believe that we as a species were not even really created, we evolved into what we are today. In the beggining we were not even thought of in creation, we just happen to come about by evolution. We just happene to become the biengs we are today simly due to us as a species evolving and respinding to our enviroment, and we were not neccesarily though of in creation as we are today.
Hello. New here.
First of all I do not believe God is omnipotent. If there is an omnipotent God
and that God has a goal then God has reached the goal instantly without any
need for creating universes etc. If omnipotent God does not have a goal then he
is effectively random. In either case the God either accidentally made the
universe or didn't and there's something else going on.
As for worshipping God: An omnipotent God would not care - can get whatever
they want without worship.
A non omnipotent God might need worship, or they might need sacrifices of
tomato soup. Difficult to know without a clear message. However, a non
omnipotent God that has a use for us (whether that's a need to have worshippers
or a need to satisfy this feeling that he's done something nice for another
creature by creating it and giving it a nice world to enjoy) is something I see
a point in actually thinking about. If God is supposed to be just a prime mover
then he may well not be there at all as far as we're concerned and we may as
well be atheists.
Incidentally - I don't buy this 'Definitely a God due to fine tuned universe
thing' - if fine tuned universe presupposes an amazing God, does an amazing God
not presuppose an amazing super God that made God? etc etc. There could not
have been nothing. What there was this universe. Please direct me to a
different message board where you might be discussing such things elsewhere if
you are.
If God, say, created us so that our souls might exist in the first place, and
once we're dead and have learnt some kind of lesson from life (though not sure
what dead 3 year old kids are supposed to have learnt) and go to the afterlife
where we can hang out with God and be happy and help God fulfill his need of
not being lonely and feeling like he's made others happy. That would be cool.
And to tie it in with a few other God related topics - God does want us to
be good. God has designed us to feel happier when we genuinely think we
have increased future happiness in the world.
As for practicality (over say believing in the god that demands the tomato
soup sacrifices) - believing in such a God will encourage good behaviour, make
people happier believing they will have a good afterlife and make people less
scared of death (in a good way - probably needs to be some disincentive to
suicide/deathwishes) as opposed to losing their job sacrificing soup to an
insatiable God at work, and then starving to death to become soup sacrificer in
heaven too. Face it, if it's something weird and obscure then we're never going
to guess it anyway. If it's something generic and sensible and widely
applicable then I think we're more likely to be onto something.
Look forward to hearing from you
Jack
Hi Jack!
The notion of an omnipotent, omniscient deity with no needs and no goals does indeed sound pretty boring and pointless. That's why I have cobbled together my own personal God-concept from a combination of modern scientific understanding and ancient cultural wisdom. I won't go into the details here, but my G*D is both eternal and temporal, both omnipotent and powerless, both needless and needy, both a dial-twiddling fine-tuner and a bumbling, accident-prone randomizer. We all know for sure that the second of each trait-pair is true, because that's the reality we experience every day. The other stuff is all imaginary and speculative. It may be true in some higher reality, but we don't know that for certain. I resolve these philosophical paradoxes by assuming that G*D is the eternal whole of which we are a temporal part. In this imperfect, dualistic universe there is nothing that is not a part of G*D. But G*D encompasses this puny-verse and everthing else that could ever possibly exist. Being complete and whole, G*D is perfect in every way, but all we actually know of this idealized deity is the imperfect world around us. If you want to know more about the Holistic worldview, you could start by checking out this Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
<< However, a non-omnipotent God that has a use for us (whether that's a need to have worshippers
or a need to satisfy this feeling that he's done something nice for another
creature by creating it and giving it a nice world to enjoy) is something I see
a point in actually thinking about. >>
That description sounds like the Old Testament tribal-god, who has needs, feelings, & desires, and loves his little creatures, as long as they obey the rules. When they disobey, he will lovingly chastise them with fire and brimstone. Such a God, created in our own image, is admittedly much easier for the average person to conceive. But the G*D of PanEnDeism is an impersonal conceptual abstraction with no concrete attributes for us to relate to. That may be why some Deists stop short of carrying the god-concept to its logical extreme, and settle for PanDeism---the physical universe itself is God. That's not quite as cozy a relationship as a father in heaven, but at least it gives us something concrete to conceptualize.
<< Incidentally - I don't buy this 'Definitely a God due to fine tuned universe
thing' - if fine tuned universe presupposes an amazing God, does an amazing God
not presuppose an amazing super God that made God? etc etc. >>
The "who created god" question is only a problem for those who believe in the anthro-morphic kind of deity. For Panendeists the question is irrelevant.
<< Please direct me to a different message board where you might be discussing such things elsewhere if
you are. >>
We discuss "such things" on the Panendeist Forum, but mostly to contrast with our own conception of a G*D who is just the opposite of such things. The un-deist Uncertainism website may be more along the lines of what you have in mind. In the early stages VJO conceived of God as some kind of energy being floating around out there in the eternal universe. I'm not sure where he stands now on the god question, but that is not the primary focus of his "un-religion". http://www.uncertainism.com/
I replied ages ago but for some reason my posts didn't work.
The main point was that you describe your view as being the logical extreme.
Yet you suggest the definition of God is self contradictory
"both omnipotent and powerless, both needless and needy"
This is not reasonable/logical.
The logical extreme I was referring to is the category-of-all-categories at the very top of the pyramid of possibilities. In that sense a deity who encompasses both good and evil (in lower categories) is not self-contradictory, but self-consistent. Imagine a bubble which envelops a million other bubbles, some of which are divided in two.
Contradiction is opposition between entities in the same logical category. If G*D is the whole of which everything else is a part, then there is no other entity in the same logical category to oppose. G*D is the ultimate bubble, so any other "gods" would have to be demi-gods in one of the lower bubbles, where they could fight amongst themselves.
There is indeed contradiction within this temporal, dualistic universe. But there can be no opposition for an eternal, monistic deity. Besides, human logic and reasoning is based on our experience with a yin/yang world of oppositions. It takes a stretch of imagination, and mundane metaphors, to envision a monistic and holistic form of existence.
As an analogy, you can oppose your two hands, but you cannot oppose your unitary self.
Now that I know the post I could write more but it would be most beneficial to just address this one issue mentioned in the immediately prior post first.
Look forward to hearing from you gnomon.
First of all, I don't think God is a him. That is the Bible version...a man with a long white robe and long white beard.
I think the Creator(s) chose an empty planet to place things on. Then we evolved to a human who didn't know much of anything. Then the ailens came and interbread with us and we became who we are today. Very simplified :o)
I won't pretend I will reliably check if there was a response to this soon but why do you believe in the alien interbreeding?
And why did God put things on the empty planet?
If you have already described your philosophy in depth do point me in the direction towards where it's already written
??????? ??????? ? ???????? ??????? ? ?????? ?????? (2010) ?????? (2010) ??????? The Longest Yard movie wallpapers The Longest Yard free movie wallpapers ykapral2
This question could be regarded as silly because it assumes the existence of a "God". It is like the reaction I show when someone asks me if I believe in "God". I say that it assumes there is a "God" when anyone with a knowledge of Logic and Science knows THERE AIN'T NO GOD.
God was made in the Mind of Man.