Why did God create the universe in the first place?

[oldcelt]

FYI, Gary, the whole is DIFFERENT than the summation of its parts, according to the Gestalt school of psychology. IOW the whole depends on the arrangement, pattern, configuration of its parts based on the laws of perceptual grouping and the principle of Pragnanz. Further, we humans have a motivational drive to perceive the universe as an organized whole structure of good configuration or form even though it may at first appear to consist of random stimuli. This is probably related to our need to attribute meaning and purpose to our lives by perceiving them as unified rather than disconnected moments of time and experiences.

There have been some great studies done on this. In particular I recall the ones relating to our perceiving faces out of photos of other objects. For a time there was a kick in advertising of “hiding” objects in their ads in the belief that humans would make sense and
it would add to the advertisement’s impact.

Humans want to make sense out of everything…even if there is none.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Humans want to make sense out of everything…even if there is none.

Even Helen Keller did!

 

[Amandil]

Nevermind…

 

[tonyrey]

There have been some great studies done on this. In particular I recall the ones relating to our perceiving faces out of photos of other objects. For a time there was a kick in advertising of “hiding” objects in their ads in the belief that humans would make sense and
it would add to the advertisement’s impact.

Humans want to make sense out of everything…even if there is none.

If there is no sense in anything you are producing nonsense.

Why would there be sense in some things and not in others? Can we take our pick and always be right? If not why not?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

FYI, Gary, the whole is DIFFERENT than the summation of its parts, according to the Gestalt school of psychology. IOW the whole depends on the arrangement, pattern, configuration of its parts based on the laws of perceptual grouping and the principle of Pragnanz. Further, we humans have a motivational drive to perceive the universe as an organized whole structure of good configuration or form even though it may at first appear to consist of random stimuli. This is probably related to our need to attribute meaning and purpose to our lives by perceiving them as unified rather than disconnected moments of time and experiences.

That’s an interesting point Meltzerboy, however, the world around us seems to act a lot like a hologram, and as such, the whole is contained in every part as much as the parts are contained in the whole (Michael Talbot). The Gestalt school of psychology developed at a point wherein there was less integration of physics into the question of consciousness. There have been some curious developments that started at about that time but have become even more perplexing. For instance, we could say that a human is greater than the sum of his or her parts, however, there really are no parts without the sum, in that the particles that create the sum don’t actually collapse into particles until they are observed, which in turn requires a sum before there are any parts with which to build the sum (John Wheeler, Amit Goswami,). If you read that sentence a few times it might make sense, however, this is a tangled hierarchy until someone can answer that question, and to date, no one has been able to. Also, I am not convinced that consciousness is even dependent on temporal matter anyway. It seems to be independent.

Our nervous systems (to include our brains) are possibly an interface between consciousness and sentient experience. It is possible that no information is actually stored in the brain. No memory, no pictures, no sound. The brain may simply access all of this via a connection to consciousness, which is actually transpersonal, shared and outside of the brain. Materialist reductionists would disagree with this, but they are starting to flee that position in greater numbers each year, in spite of a strong and well established lobby within the scientific community. This is because they have been unable to explain how consciousness arises from a brain that is an unconscious organ made of unconscious cells that are made of unconscious atoms that are made of unconscious particles. Now that psychology has grown more into a science over time, it no longer suffices to simply say that the sum is greater than the whole. It doesn’t provide a concise explanation. Further on, it seems that the brain seems as though might simply pick up signals from the world around it and integrate it with signals from consciousness to create a venue for a given story line (Pim Van Lommel). It is an agent of experience, or a component in the process of creating experience.

The scientific method doesn’t allow for saying such things none of the parts have consciousness, but at the aggregate level the brain does, without explaining the process by which the brain does that. And while we can see neurons fire in the brain, and certain activity centers light up when performing certain functions or while experiencing certain emotions, we can do the same with the motherboard of a computer, which has no awareness of what it is processing. Similarly, no one has seen an actual thought in the brain or observed an emotion in the brain. We have only seen it process such things. They are not necessarily contained there, nor is the brain necessarily aware of the actual content (Searle).

I simply think that the world is much stranger than we imagine it to be.

 

[tonyrey]

… In turn, this view lends itself to the idea that the purpose of the creation of the universe is to allow for a transformative reanimation of a subset of one species on one planet within one small solar system on the outer edge of a medium sized galaxy among billions of other galaxies. This has profound implications (I think) in regards to the views of many as to why the universe was created.

Do you really believe significance needs on size, quantity or frequency? If so why?

What is significant in your opinion? And - of course - why?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Amandil: I did. And at the same time I never belittled the subjective aspects of religious experience. That’s not a subjectivist position as you seem to claim.

Religious truth does not come from us or our “experiences”, from “us”, but from something (or someone) independent of us and our consciousness which our minds must conform to. (That is an objective statement, not a subjective one."

What is “primary” is God. And God is a Being independent of us; He is a Trinity of Persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not merely a “consciousness”. How we know God the Father is through God the Son, and He is proclaimed by the Church with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

My subjective experiences of prayer and worship are based upon the objective fact of God and the knowable content pertaining to Him(Scripture and Sacred Tradition).

How I know that my “experiences” are true is based upon the authority of God himself & His Church, not my subjective imagination.

Trusting your imagination to properly depict God is like building your house on sand.

You got it backwards. It would be “projecting” if I was trying to deny my sinfulness by pointing out others. That’s not what is happening at all.

I never denied my sinfulness. I used my knowledge of my sinfulness to intuit the motives of others who rationalize to deny their sinfulness.

Big difference.

This is where you expect me to answer “I am me.” and you go "Aha! See! You are a subject! Therefore truth is subjective.

Nice try. But all you’re doing is taking another extreme absolutist position. If you’re going where I suspect that you’re going you’re attempting to fudge the difference between Being and Having.

Although I am subject to me, I am object to you. Just as you are object to me and subject to you.

You even speak of the experiences of God you have as “your” experiences, which indicates a gap between the self which is you(the subject) with the “experience”(the object).

IOW “I” am me as subject, but my body, my feelings, my thoughts, etc. that I know in my soul I know them as objects. I know my past because I am more than my past, I know my body because I am more than my body. Therefore that which I know as object is distinct from “me” as subject. The subject(me) conforms its being to the knowable objects(objective content) it receives.

Indeed.

How do you know that I’m not?

If it walks like a duck…

You’ve said much more than that.

I said that my experience conforms to objective observations I have made. That what I intuit from those observations may be subjective in nature, but that has yet to prove that my observations are wholly subjective, just that my observations have yet to be verified.

I still leave open the possibility of my mind to conform to other possible truths related to those observations.

Big difference.

Frankly I’m taken aback by people who claim to be Catholic, who recite the Creed at Mass and who reaffirm their Baptismal vows, yet who in practice ignore and undermine those very things which they say they believe.

CCC 67:
“Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.”

The litmus test of any private “experience” in Christianity is Obedience. Since your “experiences” have lead you is various ways to diminish, to make the Church “secondary” to your “primary” experiences, your experiences cannot be from God, thus they cannot be true experiences.

That’s that pride and self-flattery I was speaking about.

My assertion that religious beliefs that people hold are influenced by culture, upbringing, life experience, emotional and psychological needs, existential anxiety, a desire for security, and governed on an overarching level by the individual’s ability to reason implies that subjectivity is a factor in what people believe. That doesn’t make me a subjectivist. Looking at the things I have said through a lens shaded by the factors I’ve just mentioned makes my ideas appear to be at odds with what you have taken to be objective truths, when in truth they may not have been objective truths at all. I maintain that they are beliefs, albeit based on some history and some eyewitness accounts, much in the way that Alexandre Dumas constructed brilliant fictions that were infused with so much historical fact that my conscious reality is forevermore attended by the idea that the Duke of Buckingham actually knew three characters named Athos, Porthos, Aramis and A’Artagnan.

My opinion has been from the outset that the fundamental difference between the two of us is that I am aware of my own subjectivity. In this case, the facts aren’t fused with fictions as was the case with Dumas, but interpretations that developed over a period of about 350 years that were then codified into dogma, have in turn been reinforced in ritual and liturgy over numberless ages and from generation to generation, and shrink wrapped for consumption by the overriding assertion that the conclusions arrived at were divinely inspired and that the lineage of leaders who maintain them are infallible. While I have the same hopes and fears as anyone, I have to come to terms with the idea that rather than being objective truths, these are in fact the tenaciously reinforced lore of a culture and it’s institutions. I belong to that culture, and I think there’s truth in it, however, I perceive that the real truths that lie behind the broader story are much deeper and infinitely more marvelous than the conclusions that have widely found purchase in the pews and vestibules.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From TonyreyDo you really believe significance needs on size, quantity or frequency? If so why?

No, actually, I think all things are part of a whole, and that the importance of the rest of creation isn’t negated by the fact that one part of it happens to be my vantage point. I have simply not rearranged the rest of the cosmos in epicycles simply to allow that I am the center of it.

What is significant in your opinion? And - of course - why?

The whole is seen in every part. In every part is the whole. All things are bound each to each. What can be insignificant?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

oldcelt;There have been some great studies done on this. In particular I recall the ones relating to our perceiving faces out of photos of other objects. For a time there was a kick in advertising of “hiding” objects in their ads in the belief that humans would make sense and it would add to the advertisement’s impact.

Yes, I think they were called subliminal cuts. I think they may have been made illegal in the 1970’s.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . While I have the same hopes and fears as anyone, I have to come to terms with the idea that rather than being objective truths, these are in fact the tenaciously reinforced lore of a culture and it’s institutions. I belong to that culture, and I think there’s truth in it, however, I perceive that the real truths that lie behind the broader story are much deeper and infinitely more marvelous than the conclusions that have widely found purchase in the pews and vestibules.

Humility down a quart?

Seems to me that Truth lies in those pews and vestibules where we come together in love, as a community in adoration of our Creator.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Humility down a quart?

Seems to me that Truth lies in those pews and vestibules where we come together in love, as a community in adoration of our Creator.

Good Evening Aloysium: I don’t find that to be in conflict with anything I have said. I said there is truth in it, and you have very well articulated that truth as being love. Yes.

 

[meltzerboy]

My assertion that religious beliefs that people hold are influenced by culture, upbringing, life experience, emotional and psychological needs, existential anxiety, a desire for security, and governed on an overarching level by the individual’s ability to reason implies that subjectivity is a factor in what people believe. That doesn’t make me a subjectivist. Looking at the things I have said through a lens shaded by the factors I’ve just mentioned makes my ideas appear to be at odds with what you have taken to be objective truths, when in truth they may not have been objective truths at all. I maintain that they are beliefs, albeit based on some history and some eyewitness accounts, much in the way that Alexandre Dumas constructed brilliant fictions that were infused with so much historical fact that my conscious reality is forevermore attended by the idea that the Duke of Buckingham actually knew three characters named Athos, Porthos, Aramis and A’Artagnan.

My opinion has been from the outset that the fundamental difference between the two of us is that I am aware of my own subjectivity. In this case, the facts aren’t fused with fictions as was the case with Dumas, but interpretations that developed over a period of about 350 years that were then codified into dogma, have in turn been reinforced in ritual and liturgy over numberless ages and from generation to generation, and shrink wrapped for consumption by the overriding assertion that the conclusions arrived at were divinely inspired and that the lineage of leaders who maintain them are infallible. While I have the same hopes and fears as anyone, I have to come to terms with the idea that rather than being objective truths, these are in fact the tenaciously reinforced lore of a culture and it’s institutions. I belong to that culture, and I think there’s truth in it, however, I perceive that the real truths that lie behind the broader story are much deeper and infinitely more marvelous than the conclusions that have widely found purchase in the pews and vestibules.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[tonyrey]

No, actually, I think all things are part of a whole, and that the importance of the rest of creation isn’t negated by the fact that one part of it happens to be my vantage point. I have simply not rearranged the rest of the cosmos in epicycles simply to allow that I am the center of it.

The whole is seen in every part. In every part is the whole. All things are bound each to each. What can be insignificant?

:thumbsup:Nothing!

Either everything is valuable or nothing is valuable - but not everything is equally valuable.

A particle is less significant than a person and because of its size, position or any other physical characteristic.

 

[openmind77]

Hello,

Why would God create the universe in the first place?

I know it’s a pretty basic question, but I’m feeling self-conscious about looking like a Pharisee (following all the teeny little details without noticing the big picture).

According to Hinduism, God creates the Universe as a divine play (a sort of game). The Universe is God’s ‘Lila’ (pastime).

In other words he does it to make things interesting. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_(Hinduism (If url does not work google: Hinduism Lila)

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

According to Hinduism, God creates the Universe as a divine play (a sort of game). The Universe is God’s ‘Lila’ (pastime).

In other words he does it to make things interesting. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_(Hinduism (If url does not work google: Hinduism Lila)

I see this as being consistent with my position that the purpose of the universe is experience. In other words, I think we agree.

 

[Vico]

Hello,

Why would God create the universe in the first place?

I know it’s a pretty basic question, but I’m feeling self-conscious about looking like a Pharisee (following all the teeny little details without noticing the big picture).

Baltimore Catechism Q. 210. Why did God create all things?
A. God created all things for His own glory and for their or our good.

 

[Amandil]

According to Hinduism, God creates the Universe as a divine play (a sort of game). The Universe is God’s ‘Lila’ (pastime).

In other words he does it to make things interesting. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_(Hinduism (If url does not work google: Hinduism Lila)

Which begs the question why would any “god” wholly sufficient in itself need to “play a sort of game” for its own self interest?

And why would the “game” involve this dreadful mess that we call human history?

Why would a perfect god “play” at such imperfection?

 

[oldcelt]

Which begs the question why would any “god” wholly sufficient in itself need to “play a sort of game” for its own self interest?

And why would the “game” involve this dreadful mess that we call human history?

Why would a perfect god “play” at such imperfection?

That is an excellent set of questions that I think strike to the very heart of the matter. Each one of us must find the answers to the very best of our abilities.

 

[openmind77]

Which begs the question why would any “god” wholly sufficient in itself need to “play a sort of game” for its own self interest?

And why would the “game” involve this dreadful mess that we call human history?

Why would a perfect god “play” at such imperfection?

He does not do it out of need. He does it spontaneously as a pastime.

The mess, imperfection is created by us. God creates the Universe and watches it play itself out - only taking action at appropriate times (like sending a revelation).

A perfect Universe without its pairs of opposites (good/evil, light/darkness) would be very uninteresting.