Does God need us?

[ManRay]

I’ve been having troubles understanding the all knowing, all powerful, totally perfect concept.
God was necessarily the first, which means there was obviously nothing else in existence by definition.
So, as soon as I start to contemplate genesis, the universe, life on planet earth, etc…etc…
I run into the simple questions in regards to why, motivation, wants, needs, and so on. Most Christians will tell you that it created it for his glory, pleasure, and so on.* In my humble opinion these express desires.* Needs, and wants if you will. Otherwise there is no real explanation. I guess you could say - just because. But that seems to pretty much destroy the sanctity of it all. Was god bored? I don’t know how it’s legitimately possible to say the something is perfect, and then in the same breath use phrases in regards to its glory, or pleasure. That seems to be a simple contradiction. If something is perfect how could it possibly need something? That implies imperfection. How could it want something. That would imply imperfection. Perfection is complete, whole… well perfect! There is nothing that could be added to make it more perfect. To imply wants, and needs would imply something lacking. These are human attributes - we, want and need things because we are deficient- or non perfect. Bill Gates has 50 billion. but he could use some more…etc…Why does something perfect need to create us so that we could in turn want, and need it. Is God insecure?

 

[empther]

God doesn’t need us.
He gets nothing from us.

He’s not on an ego trip. That we should worship and love God is for our own sake. It does nothing for him.

He was not bored. The interaction among the three Persons is infinitely satisfying.

He created us out of generosity. It would have made no difference to him at all if he’d never created anything.

Creating the universe did not add anything to his substance or perfection.

 

[Gorgias]

God doesn’t need us.
He gets nothing from us.

Well, certainly he gets love from us.

But, from the perspective of privation, you’re right – there’s nothing that we provide to God, that God lacks.

He’s not on an ego trip. That we should worship and love God is for our own sake. It does nothing for him.

Really? The expression of love between creator and creation is not mutually satisfying? Hmm…

Again, though: if by “it does nothing for him”, you mean “it doesn’t fill a lack in God”, you’re right. But, the way you’re saying it, you make it sound like God’s some disinterested, absentee father!

It would have made no difference to him at all if he’d never created anything.

See what I mean? You’re overstating your case here, I think…

 

[ManRay]

God doesn’t need us.
He gets nothing from us.

He’s not on an ego trip. That we should worship and love God is for our own sake. It does nothing for him.

He was not bored. The interaction among the three Persons is infinitely satisfying.

He created us out of generosity. It would have made no difference to him at all if he’d never created anything.

I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t make any sense to me. First off Generosity is defined by the giving of something without wanting anything in return. Scripture contradicts this in many places - Deut.10:12-14 12 “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good? 14 Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all that is in it. "
Even if you aren’t an old testament kind of guy - a lot of that carries over into New Test.
It would have made no difference to him at all if he created anything? That’s a seriously flippant attitude in regards tocreation. He just spit us out on a whim? Big deal? If it made no difference to him - it surely would have made no difference to us. We would have never existed!! Do you have deep recollections of things before you were born? Hmmmm

Creating the universe did not add anything to his substance or perfection.

I can’t logically make sense of that…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve been having troubles understanding the all knowing, all powerful, totally perfect concept.
God was necessarily the first, which means there was obviously nothing else in existence by definition.
So, as soon as I start to contemplate genesis, the universe, life on planet earth, etc…etc…
I run into the simple questions in regards to why, motivation, wants, needs, and so on. Most Christians will tell you that it created it for his glory, pleasure, and so on.* In my humble opinion these express desires.* Needs, and wants if you will. Otherwise there is no real explanation. I guess you could say - just because. But that seems to pretty much destroy the sanctity of it all. Was god bored? I don’t know how it’s legitimately possible to say the something is perfect, and then in the same breath use phrases in regards to its glory, or pleasure. That seems to be a simple contradiction. If something is perfect how could it possibly need something? That implies imperfection. How could it want something. That would imply imperfection. Perfection is complete, whole… well perfect! There is nothing that could be added to make it more perfect. To imply wants, and needs would imply something lacking. These are human attributes - we, want and need things because we are deficient- or non perfect. Bill Gates has 50 billion. but he could use some more…etc…Why does something perfect need to create us so that we could in turn want, and need it. Is God insecure?

Well, you are on the right track. God is perfect and absolutely so. The mistake you make is the same as that many make. You are ascribing certain aspects of human nature to God. Humans have needs and desires - because we are imperfect in our own goodness, we do not have all that we think we need to be perfectly happy. But God is perfectly happy, he doesn’t need anything. So the only reason God could have in making us and the rest of creation is simply that he wanted to " share " his goodness and thereby glorify himself by sharing his glory. This is something we simply cannot comprehend because we are not God. In heaven we will understand it better. But there is no doubt that we give glory to God by living the way he wants us to. The other parts of his creation give him glory just by existing and also when we give him thanks for the wonders of his creation.

 

[empther]

the way you’re saying it, you make it sound like God’s some disinterested, absentee father!

I don’t know why people say such unfounded things.

There was nothing in my post that suggested that God is not interested in us or is not present.

 

[Gorgias]

Creating the universe did not add anything to his substance or perfection.

I can’t logically make sense of that…

LOL…! It’s kind of a Thomistic / Scholastic way of putting it, and draws upon a philosophical notion or two.

Whenever you do something (eat a pop-tart, walk to the bus stop, read a book), there’s a change: the pop-tart changes from uneaten to eaten, the path to the bus stop becomes a little more worn, the book’s pages are a little more worn, or print smudged, or binding weakened). But, it’s not just the stuff you’re working with that’s changed – by doing things, you yourself are changed! So, one of the hallmarks of activity is that both the actor and the acted-upon object are changed by virtue of the activity. It’s possible to say that we act in order to experience the changes that the action provides.

So, one of the ways that God differs from us is that God is immutable – God doesn’t change, regardless of activity or inactivity. So, in creating the universe (and us in it), God (that is, the ‘substance of God’) didn’t change. In other words, God didn’t create us in order to change anything about himself.

This also is relevant to the notion of God being perfect. God was perfect ‘before’ the creation and is perfect ‘after’ the creation. The act of creation didn’t affect the nature or the degree of God’s perfection.

Does that help?

 

[fhansen]

I’ve been having troubles understanding the all knowing, all powerful, totally perfect concept.
God was necessarily the first, which means there was obviously nothing else in existence by definition.
So, as soon as I start to contemplate genesis, the universe, life on planet earth, etc…etc…
I run into the simple questions in regards to why, motivation, wants, needs, and so on. Most Christians will tell you that it created it for his glory, pleasure, and so on.* In my humble opinion these express desires.* Needs, and wants if you will. Otherwise there is no real explanation. I guess you could say - just because. But that seems to pretty much destroy the sanctity of it all. Was god bored? I don’t know how it’s legitimately possible to say the something is perfect, and then in the same breath use phrases in regards to its glory, or pleasure. That seems to be a simple contradiction. If something is perfect how could it possibly need something? That implies imperfection. How could it want something. That would imply imperfection. Perfection is complete, whole… well perfect! There is nothing that could be added to make it more perfect. To imply wants, and needs would imply something lacking. These are human attributes - we, want and need things because we are deficient- or non perfect. Bill Gates has 50 billion. but he could use some more…etc…Why does something perfect need to create us so that we could in turn want, and need it. Is God insecure?

I think it’s because love, by its nature, wants to share in it’s goodness. If God didn’t create humans with the intention of providing them with an existence that, to put it simply, is better for* them* than the alternative, non-existence, then God could not be said to be good, or just. And, in fact, our faith teaches that God’s ultimate purpose for man is unending happiness on an unimaginable, ineffable scale.

 

[SonCatcher]

I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t make any sense to me. First off Generosity is defined by the giving of something without wanting anything in return. Scripture contradicts this in many places - Deut.10:12-14 12 “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good? 14 Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all that is in it."

Even if you aren’t an old testament kind of guy - a lot of that carries over into New Test[ament].

The commands God gives are for the benefit of those He gives them to; they are not for His own benefit.

It would have made no difference to him at all if he created anything? That’s a seriously flippant attitude in regards tocreation. He just spit us out on a whim? Big deal? If it made no difference to him - it surely would have made no difference to us. We would have never existed!!

Conversely, it could be because it makes no difference for God that it means all that much more for us. God’s creative work is a labor of pure love.

Creating the universe did not add anything to his substance or perfection.

I can’t logically make sense of that…

It’s another way of saying “creating the universe makes no difference to God”.

 

[louisak]

There is a paradox here, which I think that our finite minds will never be able to fully resolve.

One the one hand, God is infinite and contains all perfection within Himself. Therefore, nothing that we do can add to His happiness.

On the other hand, He loves us infinitely and our sins cause Him inconceivable sorrow, whereas our love and devotion are pleasing to Him and give Him joy.

As I said, it is a paradox which I don’t believe can be resolved on the purely logical level. I think that part of the joy of the Beatific Vision will consist in recognizing the answer to this mystery.

This is touched on in the delightful book “He and I” by Gabrielle Bossis. The messages in this book are private revelations and therefore are not binding, we need to exercise discretion in deciding whether to believe them. But to me, this has the ring of truth to it: “Could you believe that even though I am God I need the smiles of My children, because your happiness is essential to Me? Who can comprehend this? Who can even bear such a thought? But believe.”

 

[ManRay]

LOL…! It’s kind of a Thomistic / Scholastic way of putting it, and draws upon a philosophical notion or two.

Whenever you do something (eat a pop-tart, walk to the bus stop, read a book), there’s a change: the pop-tart changes from uneaten to eaten, the path to the bus stop becomes a little more worn, the book’s pages are a little more worn, or print smudged, or binding weakened). But, it’s not just the stuff you’re working with that’s changed – by doing things, you yourself are changed! So, one of the hallmarks of activity is that both the actor and the acted-upon object are changed by virtue of the activity. It’s possible to say that we act in order to experience the changes that the action provides.

So, one of the ways that God differs from us is that God is immutable – God doesn’t change, regardless of activity or inactivity. So, in creating the universe (and us in it), God (that is, the ‘substance of God’) didn’t change. In other words, God didn’t create us in order to change anything about himself.

This also is relevant to the notion of God being perfect. God was perfect ‘before’ the creation and is perfect ‘after’ the creation. The act of creation didn’t affect the nature or the degree of God’s perfection.

Does that help?

It certainly helps me understand your belief system. The problem I’m having goes back to my post regarding how do YOU really understand what this means? How is that possible? We exist in time, and space, bound by logic, and reason. It always bugs me to no end when people start describing something that exists outside of this realm using the parameters of this realm. Why is it that you possess this magical frame of reference (again not being sarcastic) that I do not possess? When someone tells me that something exists, and I’m interested in it I use the tools that I have here, on earth, with time and space. Logic. We all do. If I’m told there is a lake to fish somewhere, and I go there, and it isn’t there - well someone stating that - ‘no dude this particularly lake exists outside of time, and space…it exists outside of logic. I have this book that states that it’s there, and some ancient dudes explain it’s very nature.’ That wouldn’t work for anyone…unless it’s god.Its seems to work perfectly for god. Why is that?

 

[bjconk01]

There is a paradox here, which I think that our finite minds will never be able to fully resolve.

One the one hand, God is infinite and contains all perfection within Himself. Therefore, nothing that we do can add to His happiness.

On the other hand, He loves us infinitely and our sins cause Him inconceivable sorrow, whereas our love and devotion are pleasing to Him and give Him joy.

As I said, it is a paradox which I don’t believe can be resolved on the purely logical level. I think that part of the joy of the Beatific Vision will consist in recognizing the answer to this mystery.

This is touched on in the delightful book “He and I” by Gabrielle Bossis. The messages in this book are private revelations and therefore are not binding, we need to exercise discretion in deciding whether to believe them. But to me, this has the ring of truth to it: “Could you believe that even though I am God I need the smiles of My children, because your happiness is essential to Me? Who can comprehend this? Who can even bear such a thought? But believe.”

I’ve had this same question myself, and being a new Catholic, have decided that it probably belongs in the realm of mystery. That being said, I really like this response. I think this is the first response to the original post that actually refers to a writing, although not sanctioned by the Church, that at least addresses the subject. The other responses seem to rely on pure logic, or at least inherent assumptions that aren’t spelled out for a novice like myself. Is anyone aware of any authoritative writings on this subject?

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t know why people say such unfounded things.

Because of the way you put it. If I read your post as spoken word, then the expressions you use ‘sound’ like disinterest.

There was nothing in my post that suggested that God is not interested in us or is not present.

Take it as constructive criticism, then: listen to what I’m saying not as “here’s the point that empther is making”, but rather, “here’s what empther’s words make me think he’s saying”. That is, the message as intended is not necessarily the message received.

 

[Gorgias]

We exist in time, and space, bound by logic, and reason.

That’s just it, though: we’re not bound by logic and reason! They exist, and we utilize them, but we’re not bound exclusively to them, per se. Look at art: logic and reason cannot fully describe it, and yet, it’s something that is part and parcel of the human persone – we desire to interact not only with the world of creation, but the world of emotion and that which transcends it!

It always bugs me to no end when people start describing something that exists outside of this realm using the parameters of this realm.

Hmm… how, then, would one describe things? We must always do so in terms of our current frame of reference, in such a way that our past experiences shape and give rise to our ability to describe future experiences. In that way, we gradually come to be able to develop a vocabulary with which to describe the new frame of reference…

Why is it that you possess this magical frame of reference (again not being sarcastic) that I do not possess?

It’s called ‘belief’.

When someone tells me that something exists, and I’m interested in it I use the tools that I have here, on earth, with time and space. Logic.

Sure, that makes sense, when someone’s talking about a thing that exists within time and space. It’s illogical to presume that you may only use the constructs of physical existence to explain things that transcend that existence, though…

I have this book that states that it’s there, and some ancient dudes explain it’s very nature.’ That wouldn’t work for anyone…unless it’s god.Its seems to work perfectly for god. Why is that?

There used to be an amazing library in Alexandria. You can’t go there anymore, but there are books that state it was there, and some ancient dudes explain it. On the face of it, that doesn’t work for you, right?

 

[fhansen]

Maybe the question, does God need us, isn’t even posed right. Because in a sense God is us; since we’re creations of His were not as distinct or separated from Him as we might at first glance perceive to be the case. We’re more like extensions or parts of Him albeit with one difference in that He’s elected to give that part a sort of sub-autonomy; He’s willed to allow that part to will for itself, even if that means that it wills differently than He would- kind of like having a finger and knowing how it should behave for the harmony of the whole but giving it a mind and allowing it the freedom to behave as it will. And if that part wills to separate itself from Him by mistakenly thinking that it can do so (when in reality since it’s a part of Him the notion of separation is actually a fallacious one), then we can end up with the situation where the finger’s not even aware that the rest of the body exists. At any rate, in this scenario, God doesn’t need us; He’s simply already us, the fact that our existence depends on Him notwithstanding. Maybe.

 

[ManRay]

That’s just it, though: we’re not bound by logic and reason! They exist, and we utilize them, but we’re not bound exclusively to them, per se. Look at art: logic and reason cannot fully describe it Oh my goodness. I didn’t realize you would twist the context of the meaning. We are certainly bound by these things - whether we choose to acknowledge them is of a different matter. Just because we use logic, and reason to define something doesn’t mean we are correct. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. Art, poetry, whatever is produced through concrete tools, and efforts. The pen, the paint, the canvas. There is most certainly a reason or desire that is borne of this earth - unless you actually believe that artists possess godlike supernatural powers. You may think you can launch from a building and fly. Reality will surely prove that to be true, or not true. It has nothing to do with what you believe - or what you have faith in.

Hmm… how, then, would one describe things? We must always do so in terms of our current frame of reference, in such a way that our past experiences shape and give rise to our ability to describe future experiences. In that way, we gradually come to be able to develop a vocabulary with which to describe the new frame of reference… Because I describe things that exist in my world. Within space, time, and logic. Why are you twisting the context?? Have you had a conversation with god? Can you demonstrate this? Have you held its hand? Your current frame of reference is based in the here…so what is your frame of reference based in the “there”. Have you been to heaven, hell? Have you been to that place that god exists? Oh god exists everywhere at once. Can you give me an example of any other sentient being that exists everywhere at once? I don’t think you have any frame of reference for that at all, and yet you seem to understand it perfectly… How is this possible?

It’s called ‘belief’.

Sure, that makes sense, when someone’s talking about a thing that exists within time and space. It’s illogical to presume that you may only use the constructs of physical existence to explain things that transcend that existence, though…
Actually Its illogical to presume that you magically possess some power to explain things that exist outside of your realm of any known understanding. What magical school of thought are you referring to?? And please don’t come at me with unicorns unless you want to admit that it’s possible that your god was also made up of men.

There used to be an amazing library in Alexandria. You can’t go there anymore, but there are books that state it was there, and some ancient dudes explain it. On the face of it, that doesn’t work for you, right?

First, and foremost - the library wasn’t a place that existed outside of space, time, and logic. OK. Secondly - we have actual concrete, demonstrable evidence that there was in fact actual structure, and if I was pressed on the matter I would have most certainly decided against the validity of such claims- or even remained undecided if it came to be known that the evidence wasn’t valid/shaky, or the scholars were lying - or they were simply mistaken. I don’t have a problem with that. You are still twisting the context to fit your argument anyway. That in itself is guilty of a certain logical fallacy.

 

[shoe]

God doesn’t need us.
He gets nothing from us.

He’s not on an ego trip. That we should worship and love God is for our own sake. It does nothing for him.

He was not bored. The interaction among the three Persons is infinitely satisfying.

He created us out of generosity. It would have made no difference to him at all if he’d never created anything.

Creating the universe did not add anything to his substance or perfection.

Agreed.
I think God created the universe and everything that goes with it not because He was feeling “bored” and “insecure,” but rather because God is a creator and creators by nature love to create things. And since the one Godhead consists of the union of three persons (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit), God does not have needs, wants, or insecurities. In other words, God did not choose to create mankind because one day He realized that within His perfection He discovered “something lacking”: God created mankind because He is love and He is life, and one of the ways God is able to reveal His love is by His giving life to his creatures - and one of the ways God makes evident His Love for His creatures is in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

 

[ManRay]

Agreed.
I think God created the universe and everything that goes with it not because He was feeling “bored” and “insecure,” but rather because God is a creator and creators by nature love to create things. And since the one Godhead consists of the union of three persons (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit), God does not have needs, wants, or insecurities. In other words, God did not choose to create mankind because one day He realized that within His perfection He discovered “something lacking”: God created mankind because He is love and He is life, and one of the ways God is able to reveal His love is by His giving life to his creatures - and one of the ways God makes evident His Love for His creatures is in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

And yet god could have chosen not to create anything, and this thing would have never, ever known the difference. Love is bestowed upon known things. You love your wife, and you love your child, etc…etc… Things that already exist. Stating that you are going to make a baby once day, and by golly you are going to love it is absurd on the face. How many times has man fallen short of that, and yet we use these very same HUMAN attributes to show that god created us to share a love that we never even knew or cared if it existed - because we didn’t exist. hmmmmmm