Why did God create the universe in the first place?

[Amandil]

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

Either way it makes no sense.

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.

You can’t have it both ways. Either opposites(good/evil, light/darkness) are necessary for the universe(very interesting in itself that you capitalized the “u” in universe), and thus created by God or such things are created by us.

“Light” and “darkness” are not “opposites”. Light exists, darkness is the absence or privation of light.

The same goes for good and evil, they are not “opposites”. Good exists, evil is the absence or privation of good.

Therefore both “evil” and “darkness” are not “things” that exist at all.

If “evil” did exist as a “thing” you could not call it “bad”, and “karma” as an idea is utterly useless because if God created “evil” as He created “goodness” then you have to accept both good and evil on equal terms. The acceptance of “karma” as some restoration of “good” based upon some “evil” committed is utterly pointless.

As to your point about the universe being “uninteresting”, boredom is a specifically an earthly and fallen emotion. And requiring such contrasts as some sort of prerequisite to enjoying life is equally fallen and (frankly) foolish.

The word “boredom” never existed in premodern language. Joy, specifically God’s joy and the joy with which we will share in, cannot suffer from such a fallen state. Joy is as passionate and dynamic and stimulating as desire itself. And the supreme goodness of God and the joy from doing works of love can never possibly be “boring” because the yare focused on persons, not things. Persons are inexhaustible, because they are free subjects, not determined objects; open “I’s”, not closed “it’s”.

How could such a being as a “god” need such fallen human experiences to find things “interesting”?

 

[Amandil]

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.

It is an excellent set a questions. I asked them to myself a lot as an atheist.

And I would assert that Christianity provides the fullest answers to them all.

Much more so than Deism.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

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

Which in turn begs the question as to why any “god” wholly sufficient in itself would need to create anything, or would care to create anything? I really think you have to think through to the next logical point in your conclusions sometimes.

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

Well, we could probably blame that part on free will, like we do for everything else that calls the wisdom of the design into question. Or we could simply take it for what it is.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

At last, something we can agree upon!

The limits of both art and science are circumscribed by the thought that the world is much stranger than we can imagine it to be. Perhaps that is because, in so many ways, the world is more like a thought in the mind of God. And, even though we are made in his image and likeness, God is so strange!

 

[JamesCaruso]

I’m finding out more and more that people really would rather believe what they want to believe, that is they really just want to believe that which is more agreeable better suited to their current tastes and sensibilities, than believe what is true.

There’s many intellectual and psychological motives for this kind of disbelief in the truth which makes these discussions so difficult if not sometimes impossible, but mostly the source is sin. For some who are attached to a sin (or several) they foresee endless problems and difficulties if they do recognize the truth, so instead they convince themselves that it’s not that serious, or its not really sinful, or that there is no such thing as sin at all, that it’s just a “social construct”.

For others I think its rather flattering to convince yourself that you figured out some great mystery of God or about the philosophical notion of “truth” based upon modern philosophy and rationale, so instead of conforming their minds to the actual accounts of Jesus as conveyed by those who knew him and witnessed what He said and did, they create a “Jesus” based upon their own preferences and value opinions.

Of course the reasons are not limited tthese. But these are what I’ve often encountered.

What you say rings true to me, especially with regard to other Christians, all 34,800 sects. Atheists and believers in other religions seem a little more complex. .

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

At last, something we can agree upon!

The limits of both art and science are circumscribed by the thought that the world is much stranger than we can imagine it to be. Perhaps that is because, in so many ways, the world is more like a thought in the mind of God. And, even though we are made in his image and likeness, God is so strange!

Very much agreed!

 

[tonyrey]

: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.

Correction:

A particle is less significant than a person and it is **not **because of its size, position or any other physical characteristic!

 

[oldcelt]

It is an excellent set a questions. I asked them to myself a lot as an atheist.

And I would assert that Christianity provides the fullest answers to them all.

Much more so than Deism.

On that, we disagree.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

On that, we disagree.

It would be nice to know why!

The only thing I seem to be able to get out of a Deist is the rather lazy assumption that God as Creator exists, but he doesn’t think of us as particularly interesting or intend much tro be involved with us in any significant way.

Correct me if Deism answers any other questions of great import about God.

 

[oldcelt]

It would be nice to know why!

The only thing I seem to be able to get out of a Deist is the rather lazy assumption that God as Creator exists, but he doesn’t think of us as particularly interesting or intend much tro be involved with us in any significant way.

Correct me if Deism answers any other questions of great import about God.

Deism makes no attempt to go beyond what can rationally be seen and discussed. Deism is not a religion governed by any dogma so the answers you get will vary. As I see it, God is the great initiator of the universe. The why of creation is an exercise in futility because we can’t ask a direct question to the creator. The how is a process of observation and scientific discovery.
Look how far we have progressed on the how in only two centuries. Actually it is a regression…the more we can know about the early universe, the closer we are to God. Prayer is of no use, because they are not answered except in people’s imaginations…there is never any proof.

Remember, you asked. If these answers don’t satisfy you I apologize. They work for me.

 

[meltzerboy]

Deism makes no attempt to go beyond what can rationally be seen and discussed. Deism is not a religion governed by any dogma so the answers you get will vary. As I see it, God is the great initiator of the universe. The why of creation is an exercise in futility because we can’t ask a direct question to the creator. The how is a process of observation and scientific discovery.
Look how far we have progressed on the how in only two centuries. Actually it is a regression…the more we can know about the early universe, the closer we are to God. Prayer is of no use, because they are not answered except in people’s imaginations…there is never any proof.

Remember, you asked. If these answers don’t satisfy you I apologize. They work for me.

Just one quibble here, oldcelt. We CAN ask a direct question to the Creator any time we like. If, when, and how He chooses to answer us is another matter.

 

[oldcelt]

Just one quibble here, oldcelt. We CAN ask a direct question to the Creator any time we like. If, when, and how He chooses to answer us is another matter.

Meltzer, I believe that to be an exercise in futility, but that is just my belief.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As old Bishop Fulton Sheen used to say, “Every prayer is answer with yes, no, or wait.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As old Bishop Fulton Sheen used to say, “Every prayer is answer with yes, no, or wait.”

 

[tonyrey]

Meltzer, I believe that to be an exercise in futility, but that is just my belief.

if you’re not careful, John, you will end up by believing life itself is an exercise in futility - which would include all your actions and statements. At what stage do you stop on the slippery slope to cynicism - which rules out deism?

 

[oldcelt]

if you’re not careful, John, you will end up by believing life itself is an exercise in futility - which would include all your actions and statements. At what stage do you stop on the slippery slope to cynicism - which rules out deism?

Well, I certainly would know no better if I had never existed, but that was up to my parents. In a sense, they created my universe and it has been a wild ride that I wouldn’t trade for anything.
I do remain surprised at the reaction to a philosophy that believes in God. You’d think I was a wild-eyed pagan with multiple wives throwing people into volcanoes.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, I certainly would know no better if I had never existed, but that was up to my parents. In a sense, they created my universe and it has been a wild ride that I wouldn’t trade for anything.
I do remain surprised at the reaction to a philosophy that believes in God. You’d think I was a wild-eyed pagan with multiple wives throwing people into volcanoes.

As long as you don’t have multiple wild-eyed pagan wives throwing you into a volcano!

 

[oldcelt]

As long as you don’t have multiple wild-eyed pagan wives throwing you into a volcano!

Always a danger.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Why would he not ?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why would he not ?

To hear the deists talk, it was a waste of God’s time, and God finally knew his mistake.