Reason for Creation at all: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Reason for Creation at all » Reason for Creation at all

Reason for Creation at all
From God's view, WHY?

Page: 1 2 3

Reason for Creation at all

Adam P. Brunswick
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 36

Posted 10/09/07 - 08:43 PM:	#26
God is a perfect being, so of course he needs nothing. So why did he create the universe? Because he chose to out of desire. He did not need to, he chose to. An artist does not need to paint, he/she wants to. Because God is love, he desires to create. As another person said, love freely gives away, which is why God chose to create. Perhaps the atonement will help illustrate my point: God is just, so he must punish sin; but God is also merciful, which compells him to save the sinner. To satisfy both traits (justice and mercy), he came as man and punished himself: man was punished (justice) and now we can receive salvation (mercy). Likewise, because God is a loving God, he desires to create to share his love with the creation.

Jonicus
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: Minnesota!
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 37

Posted 10/10/07 - 02:42 AM:	#27
What on Earth makes anyone think they could ever understand God's reason for doing anything?

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 10/10/07 - 03:35 AM:	#28
Jonicus wrote: What on Earth makes anyone think they could ever understand God's reason for doing anything? I completely agree with your point. Theological and religious endevours are a complete waste of time. People should just live their lives and not try to understand or worry about the incomprehencible.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Allhazred
philotic twining

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 03, 2007
Location: Ive moved here
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 149

Posted 10/10/07 - 09:38 AM:	#29
Because he chose to out of desire. He did not need to, he chose to. An artist does not need to paint, he/she wants to. Because God is love, he desires to create. I don't really know about that, creative urges are kinda compelling, i feel the need to write poetry not for any reason, just that it needs doing, it needs expression, so im going to disagree with this point: while he may have chosen to create, and still felt the desire, he definately felt a need to, the same way an artist feels the need to write poetry or paint.
_____________________ A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Vladimir Lenin your awareness of the whole is marred by your awareness of that which moves contrary to the whole - the sixth dimension Maybe... if you spend your life worrying... then the only way that your life will have meaning is if what you fear becomes real. - tagline from Sublime

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 10/10/07 - 10:33 AM:	#30
Jonicus wrote: What on Earth makes anyone think they could ever understand God's reason for doing anything? Explanations that do not address the motivations of an intentional agent aren�t very meaningful explanations. So those given to explaining the world in theological terms that include intentional agents quite unsurprisingly ascribe motivations to those agents. The explanatory motivations for the actions of invisible supernatural beings with all kinds of superpowers are no more preposterous than any of the rest of the theology. Cheers. j
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Bo Archer
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 30, 2004
Location: In a sea of reactionarism
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 41

Posted 10/11/07 - 03:18 PM:	#31
I see the Supreme Being/Universe/Creation as one. I can not see how we lowly creatures could judge it perfect or not. In our original state of nature mankind was an apelike creatures perfectly meshed into the ecology of the Earth until somehow we developed a powerful mental skill of cognitive thought unknown to this Earth. This appears understandable only if it's source was an otherworldly contamination. Now mankind evolved bizarrely into a super predator and to this day continuously consumes the Earth. Now mankind is imperfectly meshed into the Earth and posing a grave threat to Earth and mankind. Mankind must seek a more perfect mesh into the ecology of Earth and radically change our flawed perceptions or our relationship to Supreme Being/Universe/Creation. Does philosophy offer anything other than continued glorification of the Self with all it's avarice and destruction?

emanswen
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2007
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 79

Posted 10/24/07 - 07:35 PM:	#32
Allhazred wrote: Something that has always fascinated me and that has never been explained in a reasonable way, is Why did God, or Allah or whomever decide to create the universe anyway. Anytime this has ever been touched upon by me in the past the answer has been: 'God created the universe because he loves us' which makes no sense, as we were not even created yet, it makes God sound like he has a bad case of dependancy.. Thoughts? I guess that if this God, or Allah, or whoever, were by definition maximally good, then every action he performed would somehow have to play some part in bringing about maximum total goodness. I suppose therefore, God, or Allah, or whoever, would have created the universe because it plays some part in the process of creating maximum total goodness. Whether or not this universe is the one that produces maximum goodness, however, I imagine is debatable, and perhaps unknowable by us humans who don't know much about this God, Allah, or whoever, and his plans, or anything else outside of this universe.

discoveryii
Implement

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2006
Location: Columbus, OH, USA
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1222

Posted 10/24/07 - 09:50 PM:	#33
God created everything so as to laugh at everything when everything suffers from his will. Why not enjoy a good laugh? The next time you see someone shot, just think God is laughing at you.
_____________________ The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be. �Socrates

Allhazred
philotic twining

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 03, 2007
Location: Ive moved here
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 149

Posted 10/26/07 - 12:50 PM:	#34
So my friends, it seems that the most popular theories we have are the Entertainment Theory, wherein creation is just the best form of entertainment The Diety could think up, the Oneness theory where the universe is an extention of the Diety, and the Goodness Theory which professes that creation extends the max goodness of the Diety is that all we can come up with?
_____________________ A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Vladimir Lenin your awareness of the whole is marred by your awareness of that which moves contrary to the whole - the sixth dimension Maybe... if you spend your life worrying... then the only way that your life will have meaning is if what you fear becomes real. - tagline from Sublime

discoveryii
Implement

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2006
Location: Columbus, OH, USA
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1222

Posted 10/26/07 - 01:02 PM:	#35
Nope. There's one more. We weren't created.
_____________________ The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be. �Socrates

Allhazred
philotic twining

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 03, 2007
Location: Ive moved here
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 149

Posted 10/26/07 - 01:06 PM:	#36
lol ok so one more, the Non-Creation Theory care to elaborate on that one Dicoveryii?
_____________________ A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Vladimir Lenin your awareness of the whole is marred by your awareness of that which moves contrary to the whole - the sixth dimension Maybe... if you spend your life worrying... then the only way that your life will have meaning is if what you fear becomes real. - tagline from Sublime

discoveryii
Implement

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2006
Location: Columbus, OH, USA
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1222

Posted 10/26/07 - 01:51 PM:	#37
God doesn't exist. So, it would be absolutely nonsensical to say we were created. Thus, there cannot be a reason for creation.
_____________________ The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be. �Socrates

Allhazred
philotic twining

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 03, 2007
Location: Ive moved here
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 149

Posted 10/29/07 - 10:11 AM:	#38
Oh i see well re-name the Non-Creation theory the Atheist theory.
_____________________ A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Vladimir Lenin your awareness of the whole is marred by your awareness of that which moves contrary to the whole - the sixth dimension Maybe... if you spend your life worrying... then the only way that your life will have meaning is if what you fear becomes real. - tagline from Sublime

emanswen
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2007
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/09/08 - 11:14 PM:	#39
This is probably an expansion on the "maximising goodness" or maybe the "because God loves you" theory, but here are some of my recent thoughts on this subject: God is defined as being perfect. Part of his perfection would be omni-benevolence. But while it is good for a being to be omni-benevolent in nature, it is better for a being to be omni-benevolent both in nature and in practice (i.e. to actually do good things rather than just have the inclination to do good things). It would therefore follow that God would create things and beings separate from himself so that he could exercise his omni-benevolence towards them. I guess you could sum it up by saying that omni-benevolence-plus-creation is greater than omni-benevolence-plus-solitude; therefore a perfect God would create at least something separate from himself.

180 Proof
Cult Deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3529

Posted 04/09/08 - 11:52 PM:	#40
emanswen wrote: This is probably an expansion on the "maximising goodness" or maybe the "because God loves you" theory, but here are some of my recent thoughts on this subject: God is defined as being perfect. Part of his perfection would be omni-benevolence. But while it is good for a being to be omni-benevolent in nature, it is better for a being to be omni-benevolent both in nature and in practice (i.e. to actually do good things rather than just have the inclination to do good things). It would therefore follow that God would create things and beings separate from himself so that he could exercise his omni-benevolence towards them. I guess you could sum it up by saying that omni-benevolence-plus-creation is greater than omni-benevolence-plus-solitude; therefore a perfect God would create at least something separate from himself. If this god's perfection implied "maximizing goodness", then it follows that such a god would do so by creating (i.e. replicating) itself ad infinitum with each of its creations (i.e. replicas) likewise doing the same ad infinitum actualizing all possible goodness "instantaneously" (e.g. big bang).
_____________________ If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sufficient -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1664

Posted 04/10/08 - 02:45 AM:	#41
I just never understand where apodeictic statements of a being/entity that defies all perception and experience come from. The reason for existence (which might mean a creation instant but not necessarily so) is because it is more normal (statistically probable) for there to be things than for there to be nothings.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4198

Posted 04/10/08 - 08:21 AM:	#42
Benkei wrote: I just never understand where apodeictic statements of a being/entity that defies all perception and experience come from. All perception, yes, but not all experience. All theists (and more) claim to have experienced such a being. The reason for existence (which might mean a creation instant but not necessarily so) is because it is more normal (statistically probable) for there to be things than for there to be nothings. How come? I can't see any sampling procedure that established this assertion .
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

emanswen
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2007
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/10/08 - 08:31 AM:	#43
180 Proof wrote: emanswen wrote: This is probably an expansion on the "maximising goodness" or maybe the "because God loves you" theory, but here are some of my recent thoughts on this subject: God is defined as being perfect. Part of his perfection would be omni-benevolence. But while it is good for a being to be omni-benevolent in nature, it is better for a being to be omni-benevolent both in nature and in practice (i.e. to actually do good things rather than just have the inclination to do good things). It would therefore follow that God would create things and beings separate from himself so that he could exercise his omni-benevolence towards them. I guess you could sum it up by saying that omni-benevolence-plus-creation is greater than omni-benevolence-plus-solitude; therefore a perfect God would create at least something separate from himself. If this god's perfection implied "maximizing goodness", then it follows that such a god would do so by creating (i.e. replicating) itself ad infinitum with each of its creations (i.e. replicas) likewise doing the same ad infinitum actualizing all possible goodness "instantaneously" (e.g. big bang). I guess I am not really talking about "maximising goodness" after all. If God really were the greatest possible being, then his existence alone would ensure that goodness had been maximised; God wouldn't need to do anything else in order to increase the total goodness in existence; it would already be at its maximum level. My argument was that God's omni-benevolence would entail his creation of other things or beings separate from himself, so that, rather than being omni-benevolent in nature only, he would be omni-benevolent in both nature and practice, which is greater. God, being perfect, would be entirely self-sufficient; he would have no needs. Therefore, if God (G) were to create a replica of himself (G), then G would also be self-sufficient and have no needs. How then could G exercise his omni-benevolence with regard to G? He could not, because G would have no needs that could be fulfilled by G. Therefore, I would argue that God's omni-benevolence would compel him to create things or beings that were inferior to himself insofar as they had needs and desires, so that God could exercise his omni-benevolence towards them by helping to satisfy those needs and desires.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1664

Posted 04/10/08 - 08:59 AM:	#44
All theists (and more) claim to have experienced such a being. Claim indeed. It is not certifiable that the experience is about such a being or something else. But assuming that the connections with the divine I have had - as I normally describe it - were indeed a real experience of something, it still fails to be an epistemological basis for anything. I do not know whether I experienced anything beyond what I created myself or what I experienced. I cannot express it in any form or another. How come? I can't see any sampling procedure that established this assertion . That was just my way of expressing the miracle of existence in that apparently (as I notice everyday) it is more normal for there to be an existence than not. It's not a reason but then I don't think there is a reason for existence as a whole, with luck a how and why can be answered some day for this universe. The inexpressability of the miracle itself is already more meaningful than the question so it is sufficient for me as an answer to this meaningless question.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4198

Posted 04/10/08 - 09:11 AM:	#45
Benkei wrote: Claim indeed. It is not certifiable that the experience is about such a being or something else. But assuming that the connections with the divine I have had - as I normally describe it - were indeed a real experience of something, it still fails to be an epistemological basis for anything. I do not know whether I experienced anything beyond what I created myself or what I experienced. I cannot express it in any form or another. All of this is true. But none of this eliminates the experience from existence. One can interpret such an experience in many different ways, but certainly the most foolish of them is to say that it doesn't exist because it is not in conformity with other ideas that I hold. Experience should trump ideas (at least in the case of sane people). Note that I'm not talking about mystical "visions". There are plenty of non-mystical experiences which are not matters of perception. That was just my way of expressing the miracle of existence in that apparently (as I notice everyday) it is more normal for there to be an existence than not. It's not a reason but then I don't think there is a reason for existence as a whole, with luck a how and why can be answered some day for this universe. The inexpressability of the miracle itself is already more meaningful than the question so it is sufficient for me as an answer to this meaningless question. Agreed, then . We, existing beings, are certainly biased in favor of existence (cf. Parmenides), and we should keep this bias in mind when we explore the miracle of existence.
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1090

Posted 04/11/08 - 05:56 PM:	#46
Although it may be possible to explain why God would want to create everything, if we are unable to come up with a rational explanation it does not mean that there isn't one. It may just mean that we are too limited in our understanding of world to be able grasp such a thing. Of course, this doesn't mean that there is a God either nor am I trying to imply such. All I'm saying is to be able to know the answer to such a problem one would likely have to be able to see and understand the world as God or God-like being would. Perhaps a better question would be how does God see the world since it would answer this and many other questions...if it could be answered.
_____________________ No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 159

Posted 04/11/08 - 07:54 PM:	#47
I think it a bit presumptuous to say that a perfect being wouldn't want or need anything, not really sure why this would be. I imagine being perfect is as good a reason to do something as being imperfect, I understand what you mean but as far as deciding to do something I don't see the bearing. After all most religions believe there to be the devil, why would a perfect being aimed at perpetuating that perfection put up with such a blagard!! The perfection mentioned seems to be more about the being itself rather than its intentions, then again if as has been said this is just a show I must say BRAVO! BRA BLOODY VO!! Well worth the entrance fee!! Edited by Techeth on 04/11/08 - 08:03 PM
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

emanswen
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2007
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 79

Posted 04/11/08 - 08:31 PM:	#48
When I say "perfect being," I suppose I am thinking of something like Anselm's "that-than-which-no-greater-can-be-conceived." As I see it, a need or desire implies a lack of something (if it did not, then the need or desire could not exist). Let us assume that there is a "perfect being," P, which does have needs or desires. Being "perfect," P would only desire good things. Therefore P must necessarily lack some good thing(s). But if this is so, I can conceive of another being, P, which is the same as P, but does not lack these good things. Thus P would be greater than P, and so P could not be a perfect being. I conclude therefore that a "perfect being" could not have needs or desires.

Gary
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2005
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 232

Posted 04/11/08 - 11:12 PM:	#49
Allhazred asked: ”Something that has always fascinated me and that has never been explained in a reasonable way, is Why did God, or Allah or whomever decide to create the universe anyway.” - Allhazred I believe that in the "beginning", God found himself amidst spirits and glory, and, he being more intelligent, saw fit to institute laws, whereby the others could progress to be more like himself; that is; assist them in gaining both intelligence and moral knowledge.

Gary
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2005
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 232

Posted 04/11/08 - 11:13 PM:	#50
Allhazred asked: ”Something that has always fascinated me and that has never been explained in a reasonable way, is Why did God, or Allah or whomever decide to create the universe anyway.” - Allhazred I believe that in the "beginning", God found himself amidst spirits and glory, and, he being more intelligent, saw fit to institute laws, whereby the others could progress to be more like himself; that is; assist them in gaining both intelligence and moral knowledge.

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.