Why did God create the universe in the first place?

[tonyrey]

It implies idealism, not solipsism.

How do I justify it?

1. It has the support of various philosophical systems (e.g. both Schopenhauer and Hegel spoke of the unconscious).
2. It has the support of various schools of psychology (e.g. Jungian psychology posits the “collective unconscious.”).
3. It has the support of various mystical traditions (e.g. Neoplatonism, Vedantism, Buddhism - all three subscribe to emanationism).
4. It has the support of various interpretations of quantum mechancis (e.g. Wheeler’s “participatory universe.”)
5. It gives a compelling reason for “why the world” (the subject matter of this thread). Why the world? It is the medium by which the unconscious world-soul becomes the divine self-conscious spirit.

6). It provides a compelling solution to the so-called “problem of evil” - a problem which plagues the Abrahamic religions. In short, the birth of self-consciousness is a dialectical struggle.

The primacy and reality of consciousness is more economically explained by **one **Supreme Being…

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The primacy and reality of consciousness is more economically explained by **one **Supreme Being…

Good Evening Tonyrey: Have you read many of the sources that Counterpoint has listed?

Thanks,
Gary

 

[tonyrey]

Good Evening Tonyrey: Have you read many of the sources that Counterpoint has listed?

Thanks,
Gary

I’ve read some of them, Gary. It’s not necessary to read many to realise that the primacy and reality of consciousness is still more economically explained by **one **Supreme Being.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I’ve read some of them, Gary. It’s not necessary to read many to realise that the primacy and reality of consciousness is still more economically explained by **one **Supreme Being.

Good Evening Tonyrey: I wouldn’t argue against what you have said.

Thanks
Gary

 

[tonyrey]

Good Evening Tonyrey: I wouldn’t argue against what you have said.

Thanks
Gary

I didn’t think you would, Gary. It’s curious how polytheism was so prevalent among primitive people and even survives today in Buddhism and Hinduism…

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I didn’t think you would, Gary. It’s curious how polytheism was so prevalent among primitive people and even survives today in Buddhism and Hinduism…

Actually, the core Hindu texts such as the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita are monotheistic, with one God expressed as many. If you read the 13 primary Upanishads, they are focused on the nature of the one God who is expressed in all things. The Bhagavad Gita is the story of the One God incarnate in human form (Krishna). The idea of God in human form as Krishna predates Christianity by thousands of years. Krishna acknowledges that people worship many gods, but maintains that no matter what you worship, you are actually worshipping Him, because all things are expressions of Him. Krishna was said to be one of about a dozen incarnations of God that occurred over time.

The reason that I think your idea that one God or Supreme Universal Consciousness is the most tenable argument is because of the way in which the Upanishads agree with modern science. I also think that Catholicism makes more sense when viewed through the greater contexts of these works. For me, it makes sense that God’s interaction within humanity is a much bigger and longer story that just happens to include our story as Christians. No parent tends to only one child in a family.

 

[openmind77]

tonyrey;11864925:

I didn’t think you would, Gary. It’s curious how polytheism was so prevalent among primitive people and even survives today in Buddhism and Hinduism…

Actually, the core Hindu texts such as the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita are monotheistic, with one God expressed as many. If you read the 13 primary Upanishads, they are focused on the nature of the one God who is expressed in all things. The Bhagavad Gita is the story of the One God incarnate in human form (Krishna). The idea of God in human form as Krishna predates Christianity by thousands of years. Krishna acknowledges that people worship many gods, but maintains that no matter what you worship, you are actually worshipping Him, because all things are expressions of Him. Krishna was said to be one of about a dozen incarnations of God that occurred over time.

The reason that I think your idea that one God or Supreme Universal Consciousness is the most tenable argument is because of the way in which the Upanishads agree with modern science. I also think that Catholicism makes more sense when viewed through the greater contexts of these works. For me, it makes sense that God’s interaction within humanity is a much bigger and longer story that just happens to include our story as Christians. No parent tends to only one child in a family.

I agree that monotheism/polytheism depends a lot on how you look at it - how you define a God. For instance, I am pretty sure that there are millions of inhabited planets in the Universe and each probably has its own version of Jesus/Krishna, although they are all probably incarnations of the one ‘Son’. So if you consider each a separate God, you maybe a polytheist, if you consider only the universal Son as the God, then you are a monotheist (or maybe tritheist?).

Here is a explanation of where all the Hindu Gods come from : thehindugods.com

To get back to the topic, there is no ‘purpose’ to the universe since God is complete in himself, He only creates the universe as a pastime.

 

[meltzerboy]

I agree that monotheism/polytheism depends a lot on how you look at it - how you define a God. For instance, I am pretty sure that there are millions of inhabited planets in the Universe and each probably has its own version of Jesus/Krishna, although they are all probably incarnations of the one ‘Son’. So if you consider each a separate God, you maybe a polytheist, if you consider only the universal Son as the God, then you are a monotheist (or maybe tritheist?).

Here is a explanation of where all the Hindu Gods come from : thehindugods.com

To get back to the topic, there is no ‘purpose’ to the universe since God is complete in himself, He only creates the universe as a pastime.

If G-d is complete in Himself, why does He need a pastime?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

If G-d is complete in Himself, why does He need a pastime?

Good Evening Melzerboy: I guess that depends on how you look at the idea of complete. The idea is only a problem if you see God as something unconnected with the world. If you see Him/Her as the fabric into which our lives and our experiences are woven, then this question and many others are answered, or so I have reasoned.

Thanks
Gary

 

[openmind77]

If G-d is complete in Himself, why does He need a pastime?

He does not need a pastime. Nobody needs a pastime - but it makes life interesting,

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If you see Him/Her as the fabric into which our lives and our experiences are woven, then this question and many others are answered, or so I have reasoned. . .

This isn’t what has been revealed. But it is similar, I think to what Mormons believe.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

This isn’t what has been revealed. But it is similar, I think to what Mormons believe.

Good Evening Aloysium: Some Mormons were by my house yesterday. They didn’t seem to see God the way I do, but that’s their experience of God, and it’s not for me to trouble them with mine. It seemed like they had some sort of hierarchy of God’s elect in mind (like most churchy people I meet).

I’m actually going on what has been revealed to me in my own experience. I do not see God as some disconnected being who looks down upon us. He is the branch and I am a vine. We are one thing, and whatever I do to the least of things, I have done to God as well. I have this direct experience everyday. There is nothing anyone’s dogma can do about that, because we are in truth connected, not separate. Being separate from God is a state of mind. It is also the sin of many.

Thanks,
Gary