Why did God create the universe in the first place?

[Charlemagne_III]

The problem with basing knowledge on revelation is easy to observe in this world. Too many people get entirely different revelations about the same subject, and there is no way to weed out the truth from the nonsense.

There is a way, but you have refused it. The way is through the Catholic Church which declares infallibly that it is the Way. The fact that there are different interpretations of the same revelation is not a proof that there is no one true interpretation of the revelation. Just as the fact that there are different interpretations of a scientific theory does not mean that all of those versions are false.

We are given reason by Almighty God not to refute or repudiate revelation, but to ascertain which of the revelations is most likely the one that comes from God. To say that none of the revelations come from God is to assert an authority of one’s own that cannot be verified.

 

[Tarquin]

… Bear with me–** if he always created the universe, then it must be that creating the universe is a natural manifestation of his nature**, which is love. …

Having come from recently reading Robert J. Spitzer’s “New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy,” I am now of a similar opinion. God is in some essential way, “Life” and “Creativity.” So asking why he created is like asking, “Why do things manifest their own nature rather than the nature of something they are not?” God creates because God is God, or another way to put it, God is creativity, creating, enlivening. Sorry if this sounds sophomoric; I lack a proper education in philosophy.

Since it’s established that God cannot be limited by time, then neither can He be limited by any part of His creation. God cannot be part of the universe. If He were he’d be limited by other parts of of it.
…
So God must be transcendent.

Quite so. Spitzer’s “fields,” the highest of which, if he can be defined as a “field,” is God.

Originally Posted by oldcelt
You are assuming that God is a being. What kind of being?

God is not A being. God IS Being itself.

Exactly. Which is why many religious people wind up with unfortunate notions about God, and atheists and non-religious wind up with even crazier, more impossible notions about Deity.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Having come from recently reading Robert J. Spitzer’s “New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy,” I am now of a similar opinion. God is in some essential way, “Life” and “Creativity.” So asking why he created is like asking, “Why do things manifest their own nature rather than the nature of something they are not?” God creates because God is God, or another way to put it, God is creativity, creating, enlivening. Sorry if this sounds sophomoric; I lack a proper education in philosophy…

That’s the ticket! I have no formal training either, but God made some things so even the illiterate can see it, In fact, maybe it’s easier sometimes for us to see it than someone with a lot of letters after his name. God, to me, besides being incomprehensible on one level, is utterly simple on another level. He is All Powerful, yet he can do only one thing, love. I heard a priest the other night say that Jesus could have saved the world as an infant by just one smile; he didn’t have to go to the cross. Then he backtracked and said, but in a way, he did have to go to the cross, because he had to fulfill divinely inspired Scripture. But I would go a step further and say that Jesus did have to go to the cross, because that was the only perfect way to save us, and God always does everything in the most perfect and loving way possible. As you say, it’s his nature. That;s why he deserves all the glory and why we should feel so awesomely fortunate to have such a great and wonderful God who loves us even more than we love ourselves. He is everything and we are nothing. What is truly incomprehensible is that he loves us. I won’t say he is forced to, or that he needs to, but only that it’s his nature to. It’s like a really good person who just does good things without giving it a second thought, like a reflex action. Love just comes naturally for God.

 

[petra22]

That’s the ticket! I have no formal training either, but God made some things so even the illiterate can see it, In fact, maybe it’s easier sometimes for us to see it than someone with a lot of letters after his name. God, to me, besides being incomprehensible on one level, is utterly simple on another level. He is All Powerful, yet he can do only one thing, love. I heard a priest the other night say that Jesus could have saved the world as an infant by just one smile; he didn’t have to go to the cross. Then he backtracked and said, but in a way, he did have to go to the cross, because he had to fulfill divinely inspired Scripture. But I would go a step further and say that Jesus did have to go to the cross, because that was the only perfect way to save us, and God always does everything in the most perfect and loving way possible. As you say, it’s his nature. That;s why he deserves all the glory and why we should feel so awesomely fortunate to have such a great and wonderful God who loves us even more than we love ourselves. He is everything and we are nothing. What is truly incomprehensible is that he loves us. I won’t say he is forced to, or that he needs to, but only that it’s his nature to. It’s like a really good person who just does good things without giving it a second thought, like a reflex action. Love just comes naturally for God.

Wonderful words! Comforting!

 

[Amandil]

“Since He who saves already existed, it was necessary that those who would be saved should be created so that He who saves should not exist in vain.”(St. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, chpt 22, pa. 3)

Wrap your mind around that one…

 

[JamesCaruso]

“Since He who saves already existed, it was necessary that those who would be saved should be created so that He who saves should not exist in vain.”(St. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, chpt 22, pa. 3)

Wrap your mind around that one…

I have just changed my name to “He who has a billion dollars”.

 

[Amandil]

I have just changed my name to “He who has a billion dollars”.

We had a priest giving a talk on the Trinity, and the above sentence from Irenaeus he said changed his whole outlook on God.

At one point he said this:
“In a mystical sense God needs us to be more fully who we are, so that He can be more fully Who He needs to be.”

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around that for the last six months.

 

[JamesCaruso]

We had a priest giving a talk on the Trinity, and the above sentence from Irenaeus he said changed his whole outlook on God.

At one point he said this:
“In a mystical sense God needs us to be more fully who we are, so that He can be more fully Who He needs to be.”

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around that for the last six months.

Whatever God “needs” to be he is already by his very nature, which we all know is “unchangeable.” You will never get your head wrapped around his remarks if you take them literally, unless you redefine God as changeable so that he will have a little wiggle room to get more like us so that he can be more fully who he needs to be. The trouble with this is, however, that once God becomes changeable, he is no longer God.

**Let’s just say that he may have meant that God, in becoming incarnate and dying to save us, showed that he is fully who he should be because he became fully who we are except for sin, in order to save us. ** I say, “fully who he should be”, because his becoming man and dying for us, showed how infinitely perfect his love is. It’s always best to try to put a good construction on what people say. Sometimes their literal words do not match what they mean to say. Peace.

 

[oldcelt]

“Since He who saves already existed, it was necessary that those who would be saved should be created so that He who saves should not exist in vain.”(St. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, chpt 22, pa. 3)

Wrap your mind around that one…

Really a rather glib statement for a saint of the Church. It sounds as if he thinks that God forgot something.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

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).

I think experience is the simple reason for the universe. I think God is an all pervasive consciousness that is expressed in all things throughout the universe. In turn, I think the bodies and minds of creatures such as ourselves are the agents of sentient experience by which the temporal universe comes to know itself. I think we are the means by which God experiences what God creates. I offer this as an opinion, but cannot perceive any other reason. Anticipating a reply that posits love as an alternative reason, I would offer that love too is an experience.

 

[oldcelt]

I think experience is the simple reason for the universe. I think God is an all pervasive consciousness that is expressed in all things throughout the universe. In turn, I think the bodies and minds of creatures such as ourselves are the agents of sentient experience by which the temporal universe comes to know itself. I think we are the means by which God experiences what God creates. I offer this as an opinion, but cannot perceive any other reason. Anticipating a reply that posits love as an alternative reason, I would offer that love too is an experience.

A while back I offered curiosity as a possible reason for the creation. I can perceive of God as not only an amazing intelligence, but a developing and growing intelligence. Intelligent beings generally have a high degree of curiosity as part of their nature.

Just my thought on the matter. I have nothing substantial to prove or disprove it.

John

 

[Amandil]

Whatever God “needs” to be he is already by his very nature, which we all know is “unchangeable.” You will never get your head wrapped around his remarks if you take them literally…

Trust me, I never intended to take them literally. I’ve been trying to take them prayerfully.

Some things about God just simply can’t, nor need to be, dissected logically, just contemplated thankfully.

 

[Amandil]

Really a rather glib statement for a saint of the Church. It sounds as if he thinks that God forgot something.

Not at all. Irenaeus was a great theologian, bishop, spiritual master, as well as a notorious heretic baiter. He wrote “Against Heresies” because he saw several of his friends get sucked into the evils of Gnosticism.

There’s nothing dichotomous about this statement and God’s nature.

 

[Amandil]

A while back I offered curiosity as a possible reason for the creation. I can perceive of God as not only an amazing intelligence, but a developing and growing intelligence. Intelligent beings generally have a high degree of curiosity as part of their nature.

Just my thought on the matter. I have nothing substantial to prove or disprove it.

John

A “growing intelligence” would necessarily imply limitation. Such a Being could never then be properly called “god”. For God to create something as vast and intricately complex and organized as the Universe as an interacting whole, there’s no reason to thing of any “god” who could have anything less than complete knowledge of His creation and how it would turn out, therefore for any God to Be He must have a complete intelligence.

 

[Amandil]

I think experience is the simple reason for the universe. I think God is an all pervasive consciousness that is expressed in all things throughout the universe. In turn, I think the bodies and minds of creatures such as ourselves are the agents of sentient experience by which the temporal universe comes to know itself.

Could you elaborate?

I think we are the means by which God experiences what God creates. I offer this as an opinion, but cannot perceive any other reason. Anticipating a reply that posits love as an alternative reason, I would offer that love too is an experience.

I’m afraid that this again puts a limit on God. God must be able to experience Being, because He is Being in all absolute totality and perfection, independent of His creation.

Creation only shares in the Being that God ultimately Is.

This seems to put a barrier or go-between(namely us, i.e. creation) between God and what God is.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

A while back I offered curiosity as a possible reason for the creation. I can perceive of God as not only an amazing intelligence, but a developing and growing intelligence. Intelligent beings generally have a high degree of curiosity as part of their nature.

Just my thought on the matter. I have nothing substantial to prove or disprove it.

John

Good Evening Oldcelt: I have had the very same thoughts.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Amandil: Could you elaborate?

Good Evening Amandi: I’m not sure in what way I could elaborate. Is there something in particular you wanted me to explain?

I’m afraid that this again puts a limit on God. God must be able to experience Being, because He is Being in all absolute totality and perfection, independent of His creation.

My sense is that limits can only be imposed on Gods that we create in our own imaginations. For the most part, the ways in which we portray God are attended by the limitations of the imaginations of a group of people from 3,000 years ago. Let me explain. We propose the existence of a God who is all good and all perfect, yet created a world that in it’s practical permutation turns out to be neither. That is problematic because it leaves only a few options, neither of which suggests a God without limitations. Either the world was intended to have bad as well as good, with the potential for bad being inbuilt by the world’s creator, or the creator intended for it to be all good, and it didn’t turn out that way. These are option 1 and option 2. Option 3 is that the adverse outcomes we have produced are the product of our own doing through free will, but by giving us free will, the outcomes are an epiphenomenal outcome of God’s own handiwork. If this is the case, we are left with the options that either God is all knowing and knew that it would turn out that way, which makes God less than all good, or God had no idea that it would turn out that way, which makes God less than perfect and all-knowing.

Are these true limitations on God, or are they limitations we have created by insisting on portraying God as having the attributes we think God should have? In truth, I think we know very little about the nature of God, the world around us or even very much about ourselves. Do we truly know what is good and what is bad from a broader and more informed perspective? A vaccination seems pretty bad to a three year old, but on a broader scale it can be a very good thing. I think perhaps what we perceive as one or the other may be the product of a limited view. Further, could good be known without bad in the temporal world? I’m not sure it could. All things in this realm exist in reference to something else - hot vs cold, light vs dark and so on. How is one known without the other and degrees of both? Perhaps evil is an existential imperative.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[tonyrey]

Not at all. Irenaeus was a great theologian, bishop, spiritual master, as well as a notorious heretic baiter. He wrote “Against Heresies” because he saw several of his friends get sucked into the evils of Gnosticism.

There’s nothing dichotomous about this statement and God’s nature.

He was a profound thinker:

His emphasis on the unity of God is reflected in his corresponding emphasis on the unity of salvation history. Irenaeus repeatedly insists that God began the world and has been overseeing it ever since this creative act; everything that has happened is part of his plan for humanity. The essence of this plan is a process of maturation: Irenaeus believes that humanity was created immature, and God intended his creatures to take a long time to grow into or assume the divine likeness. Thus, Adam and Eve were created as children. Their Fall was thus not a full-blown rebellion but rather a childish spat, a desire to grow up before their time and have everything with immediacy.
Everything that has happened since has therefore been planned by God to help humanity overcome this initial mishap and achieve spiritual maturity. The world has been intentionally designed by God as a difficult place, where human beings are forced to make moral decisions, as only in this way can they mature as moral agents. Irenaeus likens death to the big fish that swallowed Jonah: it was only in the depths of the whale’s belly that Jonah could turn to God and act according to the divine will. Similarly, death and suffering appear as evils, but without them we could never come to know God.

• wikipedia

Those who have never suffered cannot fully appreciate the blessings of life.

 

[oldcelt]

Good Evening Oldcelt: I have had the very same thoughts.

Hello, Gary. By your most recent post I think we have had several thoughts that are not far apart.

John

 

[tonyrey]

“Since He who saves already existed, it was necessary that those who would be saved should be created so that He who saves should not exist in vain.”(St. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, chpt 22, pa. 3)

Wrap your mind around that one…

It amounts to believing God is Love and wishes to share His joy and freedom with others.