Why did God create the universe in the first place?

[Amandil]

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

You said this:
Gary Sheldrake:

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.

What do you mean by “a pervasive consciousness”? I only ask because it sounds rather pantheistic.
Gary Sheldrake:

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.

I don’t agree at all. For example the way we think of God is not solely limited to the “limitations” or “imaginations” of that “group of people” you mention. Of course they inform us in how we formulate our expressions about God, but they are not our sole reference.

Secondly, our Catholic faith has never posited that this fallen world as it exists is the “practical permutation” of how God created the world to be. In fact the world as it exists is the exact opposite of what God intended it to be. That the world fell because of sin, thus creation was wounded because of the abuse of free will upon the part of creation(us) which was meant to be the very means, using your words, that the temporal universe was meant to know itself.

Given the promise of the redemption of the world(the protoevangelium) it seems rather apparent that God’s omniscience and omnipotence was never really negated by the Fall but that the abuse of man’s free will and the manifold results of that abuse was already anticipated by God and that the plan for a greater result was already in the works.

In either case these actions presuppose a God without limits and therefore cannot be an argument against it.
Gary Sheldrake:

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.

This seems rather to assume that “evil” is an objectively real thing. It’s not. St. Augustine answered this in his work, “On Grace and Free Will.”
Gary Sheldrake:

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,

Which begs the question what are you basing your definition of “good” on?
Gary Sheldrake:

… or God had no idea that it would turn out that way, which makes God less than perfect and all-knowing.

Which means that you’re positing a strawman. Omniscience, knowing that someone is going to do a thing, is not the same as making them do it. We all possess the will and the grace from God to choose NOT to do a thing that we know is evil. God’s knowledge does not force us to choose the evil committed. Nor does it negate His perfect goodness and wisdom. What it means is that all things, even the evil chosen by His creation, all things ultimately lead to the totality of His plan and the glorification of His Will.

cont’d

 

[Amandil]

Gary Sheldrake:

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?

Not at all. There are no limitations on God except those of which He imposes upon Himself. As I said, these presuppose the things we say are essential to God’s nature and therefore cannot be an argument against it.
Gary Sheldrake:

In truth, I think we know very little about the nature of God, the world around us or even very much about ourselves.

I don’t that’s necessarily the issue. The fact is that there are things about God that we can know and which are in fact objectively knowable.

Some have been discovered by reason and others by divine revelation.

Christianity is a religion that makes objective truth-claims as to God really is, what the world really is, and who man really is suppose to be.

So then it follows that all three of these things must be knowable to some degree.
Gary Sheldrake:

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.

Yours seems to be a problem of faith or trust. A three year old who trusts their parents and/or doctor that that vaccination is good will necessarily submit to it. A three year old who does not trust their parents or doctor will fight and scratch and claw to avoid that vaccination. Obviously the parents have the advantage of knowing the objective good of vaccinating, but that objective good isn’t negated by the child’s belief or disbelief.

The same goes for any good. Any good can be objectively known, the same as any evil can be objectively known without ever “experiencing” it. A doctor doesn’t need to have had cancer to know that its objectively evil and that the patient needs to be cured.
Gary Sheldrake:

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

Here again you seem to suppose that evil is a “thing” when it is not. I’ll again repeat my above suggestion that you read Augustine’s “Grace and Free Will.”

He doesn’t ignore or compromise the data, but rather he delves deeply into the seeming dichotomy and from it discovers something much richer and more profound than anyone before him and few after.

God bless.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

What do you mean by “a pervasive consciousness”? I only ask because it sounds rather pantheistic.

I’m a Catholic, not a pantheist. Even so, I have an inkling that God is not unconscious and confined. Therefore God must be an all-pervasive consciousness.

I don’t agree at all. For example the way we think of God is not solely limited to the “limitations” or “imaginations” of that “group of people” you mention. Of course they inform us in how we formulate our expressions about God, but they are not our sole reference.

My reference is my own direct felt experience.

Secondly, our Catholic faith has never posited that this fallen world as it exists is the “practical permutation” of how God created the world to be. In fact the world as it exists is the exact opposite of what God intended it to be. That the world fell because of sin, thus creation was wounded because of the abuse of free will upon the part of creation(us) which was meant to be the very means, using your words, that the temporal universe was meant to know itself.

I don’t see how it’s possible for God to be all knowing and perfect and create a world that turned out any other way than they way God intended for it to be. God either intended it to be this way or God didn’t intend for it to be this way. If God didn’t intend for things to be as they are, then, God would not be very wise, or very perfect. Conversely, if God intended it to be this way, then God could not be all good. This is the dichotomy of trying to define God in using old paradigms in reasoning. I am considering the possibility that the true existential requisite is that good and bad need one another.

Given the promise of the redemption of the world(the protoevangelium) it seems rather apparent that God’s omniscience and omnipotence was never really negated by the Fall but that the abuse of man’s free will and the manifold results of that abuse was already anticipated by God and that the plan for a greater result was already in the works.

What we be the point of creating a cure for something that didn’t have to happen?

In either case these actions presuppose a God without limits and therefore cannot be an argument against it.

That which has no limits can have no definition.

This seems rather to assume that “evil” is an objectively real thing. It’s not. St. Augustine answered this in his work, “On Grace and Free Will.”

At the aggregate level of creation, I wonder if either good or evil exist. Both seem to be circumstantial.

Which means that you’re positing a strawman. Omniscience, knowing that someone is going to do a thing, is not the same as making them do it.

Yet, I would not permit you to drive off the edge of a washed out bridge, and I am not even mostly good, let alone “all good.”

We all possess the will and the grace from God to choose NOT to do a thing that we know is evil. God’s knowledge does not force us to choose the evil committed. Nor does it negate His perfect goodness and wisdom. What it means is that all things, even the evil chosen by His creation, all things ultimately lead to the totality of His plan and the glorification of His Will.

We have a proclivity for doing both good and evil, and if we maintain that we were created by God, then we cannot maintain that we created ourselves or our potentials, which includes our .proclivities to do both good and bad. In and of itself, free will makes both good and evil mathematically inevitable outcomes. If I make both heads and tails on a coin and set it into motion, it will land roughly an equal number of times on each side. I give God credit for having the level of intellect required to know that. Otherwise, God is all good but dumb as a rock. Or else, God is reasonably smart and not all good. This is a hard problem to reason through. I think the answer is probably that we should stop trying to pigeonhole God with definitions.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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

Infinite Alzheimer’s?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Amandil; Not at all. There are no limitations on God except those of which He imposes upon Himself. As I said, these presuppose the things we say are essential to God’s nature and therefore cannot be an argument against it.

What limits do you suppose God has placed on Himself?

I don’t that’s necessarily the issue. The fact is that there are things about God that we can know and which are in fact objectively knowable.

I don’t disagree. The difference is that I prefer to know God for myself.

Some have been discovered by reason and others by divine revelation.

I have my own ability to reason and that which is divine and less than divine is revealed all around us. To live is a call to see it for yourself.

Christianity is a religion that makes objective truth-claims as to God really is, what the world really is, and who man really is suppose to be.

It does indeed make claims. I agree.

So then it follows that all three of these things must be knowable to some degree.

Yes, to some degree. I agree again.

Yours seems to be a problem of faith or trust.

Because I don’t agree with someone else’s ideas on reality or God doesn’t necessarily mean that I don’t have faith and trust in what I have seen for myself and in the ways in which God has been revealed to me. More to the point, I don’t believe that I have a problem. If I do have a problem, I am ever grateful that I am blissfully ignorant of it, which I will count as a blessing.

A three year old who trusts their parents and/or doctor that that vaccination is good will necessarily submit to it. A three year old who does not trust their parents or doctor will fight and scratch and claw to avoid that vaccination.

Whether a 3 year old submits to a vaccination or scratches and claws has no real bearing on whether or not a three year old thinks that having a needle stuck into them is a good thing. Moreover, you missed the point, or obfuscated it for the sake of argument.

Obviously the parents have the advantage of knowing the objective good of vaccinating, but that objective good isn’t negated by the child’s belief or disbelief.

My point was about perceptions based on point of observation and ability to reason. I also think you know that it was about perceptions. If we are to continue to have a dialog, let’s keep it honest and on point if you would please. If I have judged your intent wrongly, then I apologize, but I simply don’t have time for banter. Also, I am paying close attention to what you say and giving it careful consideration. I’m simply asking that you pay attention in return so we don’t have to get derailed on a simple matter again.

The same goes for any good. Any good can be objectively known, the same as any evil can be objectively known without ever “experiencing” it. A doctor doesn’t need to have had cancer to know that its objectively evil and that the patient needs to be cured.

I think good and bad are most always circumstantial. In 50 years cancer will probably be more of an annoyance than a bad thing. That is an example of circumstance based on time and technology.

Here again you seem to suppose that evil is a “thing” when it is not. I’ll again repeat my above suggestion that you read Augustine’s “Grace and Free Will.”

Actually, I honestly thought it was an adjective.

He doesn’t ignore or compromise the data, but rather he delves deeply into the seeming dichotomy and from it discovers something much richer and more profound than anyone before him and few after.

I have read it, but it really didn’t resonate with me to the extent that it settled any dichotomies for be. I’m open to the possibility that I simply missed the point though, and it won’t be the first time.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m a Catholic, not a pantheist. Even so, I have an inkling that God is not unconscious and confined. Therefore God must be an all-pervasive consciousness.

I think of the universe as a book (say a play or a novel) that God has written, is writing, and will continue to write. In that sense, just as an author is implicit in evey page of his book, so God is implicit in every moment of Creation. No book can be read without the sense that the author “must be an all-pervasive consciousness.”

Theologians call it Providence.

 

[meltzerboy]

I think of the universe as a book (say a play or a novel) that God has written, is writing, and will continue to write. In that sense, just as an author is implicit in evey page of his book, so God is implicit in every moment of Creation. No book can be read without the sense that the author “must be an all-pervasive consciousness.”

Theologians call it Providence.

And no book can be read without the implicit participation of the reader in the consciousness of the author, or what s/he interprets the text and context of that consciousness to be.

 

[oldcelt]

And no book can be read without the implicit participation of the reader in the consciousness of the author, or what s/he interprets the text and context of that consciousness to be.

And I’ve been amazed in my life how different experiences can be from the same book or play.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And no book can be read without the implicit participation of the reader in the consciousness of the author, or what s/he interprets the text and context of that consciousness to be.

And some authors say their books just write themselves. Not!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And I’ve been amazed in my life how different experiences can be from the same book or play.

Even more so from the same poem.

 

[Amandil]

And I’ve been amazed in my life how different experiences can be from the same book or play.

But it cannot be said that those “experiences”, whether it be a book or poetry, are accurate or true if you interpret the work to mean what you want it to mean rather than what the Author meant.

IOW we have to separate interpretation from belief. Sadly too few people nowadays do this but rather the opposite.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

But it cannot be said that those “experiences”, whether it be a book or poetry, are accurate or true if you interpret the work to mean what you want it to mean rather than what the Author meant.

IOW we have to separate interpretation from belief. Sadly too few people nowadays do this but rather the opposite.

Good afternoon Amandi: I’m not sure if it’s sad that people these days don’t seem to follow conventions. We need to remember that the old conventions may have had the primary purpose of serving the interests of institutions. The words and life of Christ can be interpreted in many ways, and made to mean many different things. They can also be used for less than genuine purposes. I wouldn’t stand too easy with the notion that the standard conventions aren’t artifacts of the needs and ambitions of their framers, especially when the framers took special care to ensure their readers that their versions are divinely inspired or infallible, and take greater care still to silence those with other opinions. The bible is a compilation of accounts of encounters with God, and what the authors made of what they meant. The authors were not God. The authors were about as reliable as you or I in regards to determining which of their thoughts are divinely inspired and which are not. On the same token, you and I have encounters with God too. We have them every day. It’s up to us to divine what they mean. You can read and interpret what others have said, but in the final analysis or end of the day, I think we have to build our own conclusions, which may in fact on occasion match the conclusions we’ve been offered by standing convention, or conversely may not.

 

[meltzerboy]

Good afternoon Amandi: I’m not sure if it’s sad that people these days don’t seem to follow conventions. We need to remember that the old conventions may have had the primary purpose of serving the interests of institutions. The words and life of Christ can be interpreted in many ways, and made to mean many different things. They can also be used for less than genuine purposes. I wouldn’t stand too easy with the notion that the standard conventions aren’t artifacts of the needs and ambitions of their framers, especially when the framers took special care to ensure their readers that their versions are divinely inspired or infallible, and take greater care still to silence those with other opinions. The bible is a compilation of accounts of encounters with God, and what the authors made of what they meant. The authors were not God. The authors were about as reliable as you or I in regards to determining which of their thoughts are divinely inspired and which are not. On the same token, you and I have encounters with God too. We have them every day. It’s up to us to divine what they mean. You can read and interpret what others have said, but in the final analysis or end of the day, I think we have to build our own conclusions, which may in fact on occasion match the conclusions we’ve been offered by standing convention, or conversely may not.

I think one of the issues regarding what you describe is what do we build our conclusions on: our own reasoning and philosophical worldview, an informed conscience, Holy Scripture, oral tradition, the Church, or all of these but not necessarily to the same extent? If we profess to be members of a religion, we are thus linked to others so that our individual opinions, while still important to us and perhaps inevitable, can no longer be the only consideration.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I think one of the issues regarding what you describe is what do we build our conclusions on: our own reasoning and philosophical worldview, an informed conscience, Holy Scripture, oral tradition, the Church, or all of these but not necessarily to the same extent? If we profess to be members of a religion, we are thus linked to others so that our individual opinions, while still important to us and perhaps inevitable, can no longer be the only consideration.

Good Afternoon Meltzerboy: While I am a member of a religion, my life experiences are distinctly my own, and there is ample evidence I think to suggest that my life is primarily about those experiences. My life and it’s distinct dimensions are part of a larger aggregate that is the Catholic experience, which is part of a larger aggregate still that is the human experience, which is part of the collective experience of life on earth, which is embedded in the life of a solar system and so on. While these move as a whole, they contain endless variations, which include my thoughts as opposed to someone else’s.

I think the expectation of having everyone move in lockstep is largely the reason why organized religion has been and continues to be such a matter of contention, because we are expecting ourselves and others to act and think in a way that is contrary to nature, which is lockstep. Not all of the instruments in an orchestra are playing the same note, nor are all of the instruments the same or being played by the same person, yet they combine to create what we call music. While all northbound traffic on a city street may me moving in the same direction, the engines are running at different RPMs, playing different songs on the radio, have different cabin temperatures and such, they are still part of northbound traffic. They are variations embedded in a larger whole.

That is how nature acts as well. Nature acts like fractals, where the source is clearly seen in each permutation and each new variation or creation is anticipated in the source. I think God is like that too, and I also think God is embedded in every part and the whole as well. Trees bifurcate that way, particles build that way, and the world grows in that same way. Without this, all things would be the same, which would be an existential impossibility. I think the Baal Shem Tov saw the same thing to some degree, but I don’t think that makes me a Hasid. It makes me a variant monad in the Catholic fractal.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Amandil]

Good afternoon Amandi: I’m not sure if it’s sad that people these days don’t seem to follow conventions.

There is a huge difference between “conventions” and objective truth.

We need to remember that the old conventions may have had the primary purpose of serving the interests of institutions.

This sounds like some sort of high-minded personal attack against the character of the Apostles and pastors of the Church.

The words and life of Christ can be interpreted in many ways, and made to mean many different things.

That’s precisely my point. People refuse to separate interpretation from belief. They interpret the words of Christ “according to their sincerely held beliefs” instead of conforming their beliefs to the mind of Christ. The fact is that all of Christ’s teachings have an objective meaning. Our responsibility is to conform our minds to THAT meaning.

They can also be used for less than genuine purposes.

The subjective and relative purposes of people who distort the teachings of Christ cannot ever negate the objective meaning of the teachings themselves or what Christ said.

I wouldn’t stand too easy with the notion that the standard conventions aren’t artifacts of the needs and ambitions of their framers, especially when the framers took special care to ensure their readers that their versions are divinely inspired or infallible, and take greater care still to silence those with other opinions.

Which if you’re saying that this is what the Church has done it sorely begs the question.

The bible is a compilation of accounts of encounters with God, and what the authors made of what they meant. The authors were not God. The authors were about as reliable as you or I in regards to determining which of their thoughts are divinely inspired and which are not.

Which again begs the question as well as denied divine grace and God’s almighty providence. God surely knew the writers that He intended to use, their talents, character, and ability to understand His message. He knew precisely what they would receive and how they would receive it, and He provided the assistance by grace for them to recall to print what He wanted them to convey in it’s entirety… He knew exactly what they would transcribe onto the scrolls and books so it can be assumed that what they perceived and recorded was exactly what He wanted them to record, and no more or no less.

Again this is you ascribing limits to God.

On the same token, you and I have encounters with God too. We have them every day. It’s up to us to divine what they mean. You can read and interpret what others have said, but in the final analysis or end of the day, I think we have to build our own conclusions, which may in fact on occasion match the conclusions we’ve been offered by standing convention, or conversely may not.

Which is nothing more than to say “I believe in subjectivism”, or at the least “religious subjectivism”, which is absurd in regards to either religion or truth.

 

[Amandil]

Gary Sheldrake:

I think the expectation of having everyone move in lockstep is largely the reason why organized religion has been and continues to be such a matter of contention, because we are expecting ourselves and others to act and think in a way that is contrary to nature, which is lockstep. Not all of the instruments in an orchestra are playing the same note, nor are all of the instruments the same or being played by the same person, yet they combine to create what we call music. While all northbound traffic on a city street may me moving in the same direction, the engines are running at different RPMs, playing different songs on the radio, have different cabin temperatures and such, they are still part of northbound traffic. They are variations embedded in a larger whole.

But that’s not the issue. You’re saying that the woodwind instruments can play music and harmonies without notes to follow or breaths to give them sound.

You’re saying that those engines can run without gas, or oil, or transmission fluids, or stop without break fluids.

Huge difference.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Amandil;11806425]There is a huge difference between “conventions” and objective truth.

I cannot see how I can offer matters of my personal faith as objective truths, when there are things I believe that are contrary to truths that are evident through practical observation. As I said before, resurrections, assumptions, ascensions and the like are part of my belief system, but they are far from being verifiable truths.

This sounds like some sort of high-minded personal attack against the character of the Apostles and pastors of the Church.

It’s a popular view of history that I share with many impartial parties that include credible historians. I have no issue with the pastors of the Church. Everyone has to sort out what they believe for themselves, and I am glad to let anyone come to whatever conclusions they come to. As for the Apostles, I think we know very little of what they actually thought. Much of what we believe came from people who never met the apostles.

That’s precisely my point. People refuse to separate interpretation from belief. They interpret the words of Christ “according to their sincerely held beliefs” instead of conforming their beliefs to the mind of Christ. The fact is that all of Christ’s teachings have an objective meaning. Our responsibility is to conform our minds to THAT meaning.

I do not believe that any institution knows the mind of Christ.

The subjective and relative purposes of people who distort the teachings of Christ cannot ever negate the objective meaning of the teachings themselves or what Christ said.

The problem would then be to figure out is distorting and who is not.

Which again begs the question as well as denied divine grace and God’s almighty providence.

If anyone can distort the message purposely, or if many groups can pop up and misunderstand the message, that too denies God’s almighty providence, My sense is that if God took the trouble to get one correct message in circulation, God would also make sure that the message didn’t have to compete with other messages. But that’s not what happened, and we have to sort the messages for ourselves I think. The problem with divine providence is that it’s selective and is applied in accordance with the agendas of people. and institutions. Every group with an interpretation of the meaning of the life of Christ can easily say the same, specifically that God took care to get the right message out, and they are the ones who have the right message.

Which is nothing more than to say “I believe in subjectivism”, or at the least “religious subjectivism”, which is absurd in regards to either religion or truth.

I have to think that there is little about faith that is objective. There is subjectivity in all religious beliefs.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

But that’s not the issue. You’re saying that the woodwind instruments can play music and harmonies without notes to follow or breaths to give them sound.

You’re saying that those engines can run without gas, or oil, or transmission fluids, or stop without break fluids.

Huge difference.

I am saying that they are not all played with the same breath, or using the same oil, brake fluid and transmission fluid. GM uses a different coolant than Ford by the way.

 

[Amandil]

I am saying that they are not all played the same breath, or using the same oil, brake fluid and transmission fluid. GM uses a different coolant than Ford by the way.

No, I beg to differ. Because unless I’m reading your words incorrectly you’re saying that either 1)we decide what “religion” is or religious truth is, or that 2) its impossible to objectively know the truth that Christ came to proclaim.

Christ came on order that we should know the truth, and that by knowing the truth that we would be set free.

1. was precisely what caused the chaotic state of affairs that was the world before Christ came into the world. Man’s attempts, even by Israel, to “decide for yourself” what religion is left man utterly lost. Religious subjectivism(we decide what religion is for ourselves) is what has caused the manifold chaos that is protestant christianity as it is today. If we decide for ourselves what christianity is, if orthodox christianity or the Catholic Church is merely the “conventions” of men seeking merely to maintain their own pride and status, then there’s absolutely no reason to be a Christian at all because if religion is subjective, then nothing is true and nothing even matters. “Reality” itself doesn’t even truly exist except in our own minds.
2. would make Christ and thus God a liar because its the claim that God neither did not nor could not do precisely what He came to do, i.e. set people free by proclaiming the truth. And if God is a liar then there is no God at all.

So if anything of what you’re saying is true then there’s absolutely no reason to believe in God at all. Because religion is nothing but figments of people’s imaginations and there is no meaning to anything at all. The only “good” is how much pleasure I can obtain before I die and become worm food.

That view doesn’t lead to God, it leads to atheism.

 

[tonyrey]

I cannot see how I can offer matters of my personal faith as objective truths, when there are things I believe that are contrary to truths that are evident through practical observation. As I said before, resurrections, assumptions, ascensions and the like are part of my belief system, but they are far from being verifiable truths.

They are also far from being falsifiable. “practical observation” tells us nothing about the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty or love.

I have to think that there is little about faith that is objective. There is subjectivity in all religious beliefs.

There is nothing about materialism that is objective! All beliefs are subjective (which is not a defect but our greatest asset). The only certainty is the fact that we have beliefs - and that we exist…