Why did God create the universe the way He did?

[Ion]

God is almighty and He could have created the universe and us any way He wanted…
Is there some special meaning for us, resulting from the way the creation was done?

 

[belorg]

God is almighty and He could have created the universe and us any way He wanted…
Is there some special meaning for us, resulting from the way the creation was done?

Since God is a necessary being , He could not have wanted anything else.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Since God is a necessary being , He could not have wanted anything else.

How would we as contingent beings have any certainty about what God as necessary being would or could want, necessarily?

Would necessity entail some sort of determined nature, i.e., impotence, to act as he wills? A coherent concept of omnipotence would preclude that.

Aquinas’ view of God as Actus Purus means that omnipotence entails his will (active principle) is unencumbered. What he wills IS what occurs. He is not a cog in the wheel of necessity constrained by what is or the way things are. He determines what is by the pure act of his will. What he wills is what transpires. His will is “pure act,” the active principle that determines the way things are, not the other way around.

In other words, he is not pure passivity, but, rather, pure activity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

God is almighty and He could have created the universe and us any way He wanted…
Is there some special meaning for us, resulting from the way the creation was done?

One constraint would be that the universe would need to be comprehensible to us as intelligent beings. We would need to make sense of it, to comprehend it, in order to reason our way to living a meaningful existence and beyond that to God.

In a sense, our limitations would set the parameters for creation if he wanted us to live meaningful lives within it. There had to have been a kind of intellectual “hand to glove” fittedness principle under which the universe was designed.

 

[shortfuse]

Why would God want to redeem sinners who hate Him and despise Him is what I want to know. why would He go to the drastic ends that He did, killing His Son on a cross. Why for so long of your miserable life you sinned against Him, and you still do after accepting the Work on the Cross, why you fail to tell others of the Wonderful salvation afforded to them, when all they have to do is hear the Word from you, faith comes by hearing. That’s what I want to know.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why would God want to redeem sinners who hate Him and despise Him is what I want to know. why would He go to the drastic ends that He did, killing His Son on a cross. Why for so long of your miserable life you sinned against Him, and you still do after accepting the Work on the Cross, why you fail to tell others of the Wonderful salvation afforded to them, when all they have to do is hear the Word from you, faith comes by hearing. That’s what I want to know.

I beg to differ, but faith does not come merely by hearing. Faith is a gift, a supernatural virtue that needs to be exercised. Hearing is a means to open the possibility of receiving the gift, but is not sufficient.

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.(James 1:22-25)

Others are not effectively evangelized merely by hearing of the offer because if it comes from the mouth of a hypocrite, that could mean the hearer will shut themselves off from receiving the word because of the duplicity of the speaker. What IS important is a sincere and true conversion and then the Holy Spirit has the opportunity to speak through the person to others through who and what they are and not merely through words that might come across as deceptive anyway. The prime focus is on our own true conversion, God takes care of the rest.

 

[hu324b]

Why would God want to redeem sinners who hate Him and despise Him is what I want to know. why would He go to the drastic ends that He did, killing His Son on a cross. Why for so long of your miserable life you sinned against Him, and you still do after accepting the Work on the Cross, why you fail to tell others of the Wonderful salvation afforded to them, when all they have to do is hear the Word from you, faith comes by hearing. That’s what I want to know.

Its pretty clear in the Bible - because God loves us. None of us are worthy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why would God want to redeem sinners who hate Him and despise Him is what I want to know.

This question would seem to depend upon the answer to why God would choose to create human beings in the first place. What are his reasons for creating humans beings such that those reasons would make humans so worth God’s investment that he would undergo a crucifixion in order to redeem even sinners who are at enmity with him?

I am not clear that anyone except God is even capable of understanding the depth of his love; not that the words of human languages have the capacity to carry that meaning, in any case.

Perhaps the reason God became man is to allow us to fully see and comprehend things from his perspective.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (pay attention to the bolded parts) says this…

I. WHY DID THE WORD BECOME FLESH?

456 With the Nicene Creed, we answer by confessing: “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.”

457 The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who "loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins": “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins”:

Sick, our nature demanded to be healed; fallen, to be raised up; dead, to rise again. We had lost the possession of the good; it was necessary for it to be given back to us. Closed in the darkness, it was necessary to bring us the light; captives, we awaited a Savior; prisoners, help; slaves, a liberator. Are these things minor or insignificant? Did they not move God to descend to human nature and visit it, since humanity was in so miserable and unhappy a state?

458 The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God’s love: “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

459 The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.” “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: “Listen to him!” Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: “Love one another as I have loved you.” This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example.

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

 

[Ion]

This question would seem to depend upon the answer to why God would choose to create human beings in the first place. What are his reasons for creating humans beings such that those reasons would make humans so worth God’s investment that he would undergo a crucifixion in order to redeem even sinners who are at enmity with him?

I am not clear that anyone except God is even capable of understanding the depth of his love; not that the words of human languages have the capacity to carry that meaning, in any case.

Perhaps the reason God became man is to allow us to fully see and comprehend things from his perspective.

First human was Adam who gave flesh to Eve, then Holy Virgin Mary who gave flesh to Jesus. May this be the reason God created Adam as the first human?

 

[Peter_Plato]

First human was Adam who gave flesh to Eve, then Holy Virgin Mary who gave flesh to Jesus. May this be the reason God created Adam as the first human?

According to Thomistic (Aristotelian) metaphysics, any event cannot be fully understood without reference to it’s final cause (the ‘end’ toward which it tends.)

If this is true, then the form that Adam was initially endowed with can only be understood with reference to the Incarnation - the ‘form’ God took to become man. The physical capacities that humans have must have been initially created with the potential to ‘interface’ in a real way with God becoming man. That ‘interfacing’ potential (the ‘image’ of God) would have been the reason God created Adam in the form that he did.

 

[fhansen]

God is almighty and He could have created the universe and us any way He wanted…
Is there some special meaning for us, resulting from the way the creation was done?

The following is from the CCC:
**310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better.174 But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.175
**

 

[Ion]

God created Adam, and the first human was male. Then from the male he created the female. That means there is no possibility for any poligenism or evolutionism in our ancestry. Only with a first female would have been theoretical possible.

 

[Neoplatonist]

The following is from the CCC:
**310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better.174 But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.175
**

Consider a couple of ideas that might add to this:
1.) Evil is the privation of good, not a separate thing in itself. That means any world in which our minds can extrapolate to imagine a world that was more good [sic], then we will see evil. If we could not forever imagine better and better worlds, then we could never grow in our understanding toward what it would mean for God to be infinitely good.

2.) If God had made us only capable of obeying his will, and not of choosing our own will, then love between selves would be reduced to the feelings you have toward your hand or your foot, which can only do what you will it to do. I would, again, not choose a world like that.

Just a couple of thoughts.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Consider a couple of ideas that might add to this:
1.) Evil is the privation of good, not a separate thing in itself. That means any world in which our minds can extrapolate to imagine a world that was more good [sic], then we will see evil. If we could not forever imagine better and better worlds, then we could never grow in our understanding toward what it would mean for God to be infinitely good.

2.) If God had made us only capable of obeying his will, and not of choosing our own will, then love between selves would be reduced to the feelings you have toward your hand or your foot, which can only do what you will it to do. I would, again, not choose a world like that.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Except that determinations of omniscience and omnibenevolence would, by definition, be THE BEST possible. All determinations made by human beings contrary to God’s will would be relatively evil in comparison.

Clearly, humans were given free choice and that choice was respected. You cannot claim that because humans did choose a less than good option and God respected that option, that he should magically turn the outcome of what humans chose into something better. God respected the choice that Adam and Eve made and allowed the natural consequences of their choices to come about. He need not play the role of an enabler.

It isn’t a question of imagining better and better worlds. Simple common sense would - if loving trust were in operation - grasp that omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience, by definition, holds out the incomparable choice of worlds.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Except that determinations of omniscience and omnibenevolence would, by definition, be THE BEST possible. All determinations made by human beings contrary to God’s will would be relatively evil in comparison.

Clearly, humans were given free choice and that choice was respected. You cannot claim that because humans did choose a less than good option and God respected that option, that he should magically turn the outcome of what humans chose into something better. God respected the choice that Adam and Eve made and allowed the natural consequences of their choices to come about. He need not play the role of an enabler.

It isn’t a question of imagining better and better worlds. Simple common sense would - if loving trust were in operation - grasp that omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience, by definition, holds out the incomparable choice of worlds.

Sure, but we would not see them as evil, unless we could reflect on a possible world better than we have achieved thus far.

I didn’t intend to imply God had to turn anything into anything. ?]

You’re implying that “simple common sense” somehow operates independently of our lifetime experience of considering possible alternatives in our decisions and actions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sure, but we would not see them as evil, unless we could reflect on a possible world better than we have achieved thus far.

I didn’t intend to imply God had to turn anything into anything. ?]

You’re implying that “simple common sense” somehow operates independently of our lifetime experience of considering possible alternatives in our decisions and actions.

Perhaps our lifetime of experience is really “learning the hard way” which need not have been the case.

 

[Neoplatonist]

If God had not made the world less than perfect, we would not have the chance to be co-creators. That seems to require something short of the world God could have made, and it seems to require that we have a capacity to imagine ways to improve the world as we move forward.

 

[belorg]

How would we as contingent beings have any certainty about what God as necessary being would or could want, necessarily?

Would necessity entail some sort of determined nature, i.e., impotence, to act as he wills? A coherent concept of omnipotence would preclude that.

Aquinas’ view of God as Actus Purus means that omnipotence entails his will (active principle) is unencumbered. What he wills IS what occurs. He is not a cog in the wheel of necessity constrained by what is or the way things are. He determines what is by the pure act of his will. What he wills is what transpires. His will is “pure act,” the active principle that determines the way things are, not the other way around.

In other words, he is not pure passivity, but, rather, pure activity.

I agree with almost everything you say here, Peter, hence, I repeat that since God is a necessary being , He could not have wanted anything else.

 

[Blood_Angel]

This made me think about the universe and where the universe comes into Christianity or the Bible in general.
Scientists say that space is moreorless infinite or is forever expanding since the big bang which is arguably the beginning of God’s creation? Or is God contained to Earth?
But what is the point of that? As far as we know, we are the only lifeform in the universe. For the time being at least but let’s not go into talking about aliens because that isn’t what I’m getting at. Space contains the sun which is important for life, some cultures used to worship the sun I think and the moon but space is just full of gas and weird things that have no particular relevance to plant Earth.
I did wonder if God created the Universe or if God is the universe or whatever, where he fits in all that.

 

[Passionknight]

Hi everyone, blessings to you all. I encountered this thread, because i did a search of the forums for “the priciple”. Its a movie documentary on Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism soon to be released. I think the project is headed by Robert Sungenis. Believe me its shocking reverlations and conclusion has A LOT to do with the question " Why did God create the universe the way He did?" So i’m just encouraging you to do a little research on "The Principle’ Here is a link to the trailer youtube.com/watch?v=p8cBvMCucTg